Appellant V Court Case Summary
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT
BETWEEN:
BILLY Appellant -and-
R Respondent
__________________________________________
APPELLANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT
__________________________________________
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This is the appellant’s skeleton argument for his appeal. The arguments to quash the conviction under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) are based on the misdirection’s made by the judge during the trial. There are three main misdirection’s for the appeal, which can render the conviction unsafe, include: Consent, causation and intention. The appellant Billy was convicted under s.18 OAPA of the offences against the person act for causing grievous bodily harm to the victim Anita.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Billy and Anita was in a 12-year long relationship and they lived together. Their relationship involved engaging in inflicting pain on each other for sexual gratification. On the occasion in question, …show more content…
The judge stated that it was clear Billy had the needed intent. Consequently, there were no directions made in relation to intent, which is vital for s. 18 of the OAPA. The offence’s Actus Reus is the unlawful wounding or causing GBH and the Mens Rea is doing this with the intention to wound or cause GBH. Anita and Billy’s relationship, makes it clear that some harm was intended. However, there is no evidence that the intended harm was anywhere close to that of wounding or GBH. It was established in Taylor that an intention to wound was insufficient. Consequently, this only confirms the intention needed must be to cause truly serious harm to a person. This is simply unreasonable to apply to Billy’s
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT
BETWEEN:
BILLY Appellant -and-
R Respondent
__________________________________________
APPELLANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT
__________________________________________
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This is the appellant’s skeleton argument for his appeal. The arguments to quash the conviction under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) are based on the misdirection’s made by the judge during the trial. There are three main misdirection’s for the appeal, which can render the conviction unsafe, include: Consent, causation and intention. The appellant Billy was convicted under s.18 OAPA of the offences against the person act for causing grievous bodily harm to the victim Anita.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Billy and Anita was in a 12-year long relationship and they lived together. Their relationship involved engaging in inflicting pain on each other for sexual gratification. On the occasion in question, …show more content…
The judge stated that it was clear Billy had the needed intent. Consequently, there were no directions made in relation to intent, which is vital for s. 18 of the OAPA. The offence’s Actus Reus is the unlawful wounding or causing GBH and the Mens Rea is doing this with the intention to wound or cause GBH. Anita and Billy’s relationship, makes it clear that some harm was intended. However, there is no evidence that the intended harm was anywhere close to that of wounding or GBH. It was established in Taylor that an intention to wound was insufficient. Consequently, this only confirms the intention needed must be to cause truly serious harm to a person. This is simply unreasonable to apply to Billy’s