R v Savage [1991] UKHL 15 (07 November 1991)

Mrs Savage threw beer over Miss Beal in a pub; the glass broke and cut Miss Beal's wrist. The House of Lords held that for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47, the prosecution need only prove an assault and that actual bodily harm resulted, without requiring foresight of harm. For section 20 offences, foresight of some physical harm is required.

Facts

In R v Savage, Mrs Savage threw the contents of a beer glass over Miss Beal, a former girlfriend of her husband, in a public house. The glass broke and cut Miss Beal’s wrist. Mrs Savage was convicted of unlawful wounding contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Court of Appeal quashed this conviction due to misdirection on the meaning of ‘maliciously’ but substituted a verdict of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47.

In DPP v Parmenter, the defendant caused injuries to his baby son through rough handling. He was convicted under section 20 but the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions due to the trial judge’s misdirection regarding whether the defendant actually foresaw harm or merely ought to have foreseen it.

Issues

Savage

1. Whether assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a permissible alternative verdict on a count of unlawful wounding under section 20.
2. Whether a section 47 conviction requires proof of intent or recklessness as to actual bodily harm, or merely proof of assault plus causation of harm.

Parmenter

1. Whether section 20 requires proof that the defendant actually foresaw harm, or whether it suffices that he objectively ought to have foreseen it.
2. What degree of harm must be foreseen for section 20.

Judgment

The House of Lords, in a unanimous decision delivered primarily by Lord Ackner, dismissed Mrs Savage’s appeal and allowed the appeal in Parmenter’s case only to the extent of substituting section 47 convictions.

Section 47: Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

Lord Ackner held that the mens rea required for section 47 is simply that required for common assault. Once an assault is established, the question of whether it occasioned actual bodily harm is purely one of causation:

“The verdict of assault occasioning actual bodily harm may be returned upon proof of an assault together with proof of the fact that actual bodily harm was occasioned by the assault. The prosecution are not obliged to prove that the defendant intended to cause some actual bodily harm or was reckless as to whether such harm would be caused.”

The court approved R v Roberts (1972) 56 Cr App R 95, which established that ‘occasioning’ raises solely a question of causation.

Section 20: Malicious Wounding

The House affirmed that R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 correctly states the law regarding ‘maliciously’ in the 1861 Act, requiring actual foresight of consequences (subjective recklessness), not merely that the defendant ought to have foreseen harm. Lord Ackner distinguished R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341, which concerned the word ‘reckless’ in modern legislation:

“Therefore in order to establish an offence under section 20 the prosecution must prove either the defendant intended or that he actually foresaw that his act would cause harm.”

Degree of Harm to be Foreseen

Approving R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421, the House held that for section 20 it is unnecessary that the accused foresaw the gravity of harm described in the section:

“It is quite unnecessary that the accused should either have intended or have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in section 20, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.”

Alternative Verdicts

The House confirmed that R v Wilson [1984] AC 242 was correctly decided, holding that section 47 is an available alternative verdict on a section 20 charge under section 6(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

Implications

This decision clarified the distinction between sections 20 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. For section 47, no foresight of harm beyond the assault itself is required – it is a constructive crime where the consequences aggravate liability. For section 20, subjective foresight of some physical harm is required, though not necessarily harm of the gravity actually caused. The decision also confirmed that ‘Caldwell recklessness’ does not apply to offences under the 1861 Act where ‘maliciously’ appears, preserving the Cunningham subjective test for such statutory offences.

Verdict: Mrs Savage’s appeal dismissed; conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 affirmed. Mr Parmenter’s appeal allowed in part; section 20 convictions quashed and verdicts of guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 substituted.

Source: R v Savage [1991] UKHL 15 (07 November 1991)