Criminal Law

Non-fatal Offences Cases

R v Savage, Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699

Key Point

• The mens rea under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) is intention or recklessness as to whether some physical harm will be inflicted
• The mens rea under section 47 OAPA is the same as the mens rea for assault, there is no additional element of foresight of physical harm

Facts

The facts concerned two conjoined appeals:

Parmenter

• Parmenter caused injuries to his baby due to rough handling while playing
• He argued that he did not realise that his actions will cause injury
• Parmenter was convicted under section 20 OAPA
• The appeal requires 2 questions questions to be addressed in relation to mens rea under section 20 OAPA:
  • Must the defendant have subjectively intended or foreseen harm?
  • Must the harm intended or foreseen be the harm in fact caused or just some harm?

Savage

• Savage intentionally threw beer her boyfriend’s ex
• Savage appealed against her conviction under section 47 OAPA on the ground that intention or foresight of some physical harm is required under the section, which she did not have

Issue

• Under sections 20 and 47 OAPA, must the defendant have intended or foreseen some harm to be caused, the harm in fact caused or need not have foreseen any harm at all?

Held (House of Lords)

• Savage’s appeal was dismissed
• Parmenter’s appeal was allowed; his conviction was substituted for section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Lord Ackner

Mens rea under section 20 OAPA

• The meaning of ‘maliciously’ is that the defendant intended or foresaw some physical harm,
• The defendant must have actually/subjectively foreseen the harm, i.e., Cunningham recklessness
• The harm that is intended or foreseen can be of a ‘minor character’ and need not be wounding or grievous bodily harm

Mens rea under section 47 OAPA

• The only mens rea required is the mens rea for assault
• There need not be any intention or foresight of physical harm