... in total correlation to his Actus Reus; henceforth he cannot be guilty of grievous bodily harm. This is according to section 182 of the 1861 act as mentioned above, which provides that for the offence of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm, the defendant must act with "intent" to cause grievous bodily harm. This therefore contradicts what the trial judge mentioned about Adam's intentions and how they do not in any way alter his legal position, as Adam's intent was to frighten and not to cause any actual bodily harm. The issue of intent is reinforced in the case of Wilson v Pringle3, in which judge Croou-Johnson maintains "in our view the conclusion that in battery there must be an intentional touching, in one form or another of the Plaintiff to the defendant". Lord Diplock on the other hand maintains a contrary view, in that he believes that we are ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now