R v Bollom [2003]
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts: The defendant, Bollom, dropped his partner's baby during a night of drinking, resulting in bruising on the baby's leg. The baby had additional injuries, but the evidence regarding how these injuries occurred was unclear. Initially, Bollom was convicted under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm (GBH).
Issue: Whether the harm caused amounted to GBH, considering the victim's characteristics, including age.
Held: The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, substituting the conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under Section 47.
Key Judicial Statements: Fulford J emphasized that the assessment of harm should be based on the effect on the particular individual. He noted that injuries need not be life-threatening, dangerous, or permanent to constitute GBH. Instead, the court stated that injuries should be viewed collectively to determine their seriousness, and they must be caused by one continuous course of conduct constituting a continuous assault. Although the victim's age was relevant in assessing the injuries, the judge had failed to direct the jury to determine the defendant's responsibility, resulting in uncertainty and an unsafe conviction.
💡 Leveluplaw: underscores the necessity of a tailored assessment of harm based on the individual characteristics of the victim, particularly age, in determining whether an injury constitutes GBH. The ruling illustrates that injuries do not need to be severe or life-threatening to be considered serious, reinforcing the idea that context matters in legal assessments of harm. The failure to properly direct the jury on these points contributed to the appeal's success, highlighting the critical role of judicial guidance in ensuring fair trials.