You will have heard people talking about actual bodily harm, GBH, section 20, common assault and all sorts of other things when it comes to assaults. But, what is the difference?
In this post, we’ll define each type of assault and explain what the difference is in law and in sentence.
Common assault
Before 1988, assault and battery were two distinct offences. Battery required physical contact between assailant and victim. Assault required only that the assailant put the victim in fear of immediate unlawful violence. In 1988, section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act unified the two offences into common assault.
Today, if you put somebody in fear of violence then you will commit an assault. Equally, if you actually touch the person then you will commit an assault. The police will charge either “assault” or “assault by beating” to reflect whether they are alleging contact took place. Although assault by beating sounds very violent, any touch is enough whether it’s a push or a punch.
The victim need not suffer an injury in the assault. Common assault will only be charged if any injuries are very minor.
There are a few variations of common assault, particularly assault on a police officer, assault on an emergency worker, and racially aggravated common assault. We won’t go into details on the variations in this post, but typically a variant has its own unique defences and is more serious, meaning it carries a longer sentence than the plain offence.
Sentencing common assault
The maximum sentence for common assault is six-months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
In practise, the court will sentence a common assault by assessing the offender’s culpability for the offence and the harm caused to the victim. At the bottom end of the sentencing scale you can expect a fine equivalent to half a week’s income. At the top end, a sentence might include unpaid work of the full six-months imprisonment.
Defences to common assault
There are always obvious defences, such as “it never happened”, but assuming something did happen, a good defence solicitor will be looking for ways to undermine the prosecution case as well as proper defences to assault. The starting point, is always to look at the elements the prosecution have to prove and see whether they can be undermined or evidence can be excluded.
Did the complainant really believe unlawful violence would be used against him is a question your solicitor must ask.. Part of that is looking at all the circumstances. In Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod 3, there was no assault because although Mr Tuberville placed his hand on his sword during an argument, but as he did so he made a comment that made clear he did not intend to assault Mr Savage. He was tried for assault but eventually cleared because Mr Savage could not have anticipated immediate violence.
Any solicitor worth paying will also be asking you about your state of mind at the time of the offence. What were you thinking? What did you intend? To be guilty of an assault you must intend to assault or be reckless whether you commit an assault. Thus, if somebody is injured accidentally there will be no assault.
As well as undermining the prosecution case, a solicitor will want to consider whether you have a lawful excuse for assaulting somebody. The most common lawful excuses to assault are: the other person consented to the contact, prevention of a crime, preventing an offender escaping, and self-defence.
If any of those apply, your solicitor will work to put together evidence to support your case and achieve a not guilty verdict.
Actual bodily harm (ABH)
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is one step up in seriousness from common assault.
To secure a conviction, the prosecutor must prove the elements of common assault then go on to prove that an injury was caused by that assault. The injury should be something that will interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. A brief spell of unconsciousness has been held to be sufficient even where there was no other consequence from the assault, R (T) v DPP [2003] EWHC 266 (Admin), [2003] Crim LR 622. The cutting of a substantial part of the victim’s hair can also be sufficient injury for an ABH, DPP v Smith [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin). If the victim suffers a recognisable psychiatric disorder as a result of the assault that will be sufficient for ABH, R v Ireland [1998] AC 147.
We are only discussing plain ABH in this post, but there is a religiously or racially aggravated version of the offence that carries a heavier sentence.
Defences to ABH
The same defences that apply to common assault apply to ABH, although it is likely to be difficult to persuade a court that the victim consented to the injury. Depending on what the injury is and how it was caused, the court may decide not to allow a consent defence to succeed for public policy reasons.
Any solicitor should look at the injury to ensure that it is sufficient for an ABH charge. It is important that proper evidence of the injury is served, particularly where it is alleged that was a psychological injury.
Sentencing ABH
The maximum sentence for ABH is 5-years imprisonment.
The court will assess culpability and harm to arrive at the sentence. In theory, the court can impose a fine at the very lowest end but that would be unusual. A community order, which usually means unpaid work, is a more likely sentence at the bottom end of the sentencing range. The most serious offences are likely to result in immediate prison sentences, although there is still a chance of the sentence being suspended.
Assault causing grievous bodily harm (GBH)
To secure a conviction for an assault that inflicts GBH, the prosecution must prove the basic elements for a common assault but then go on to show a serious injury was caused. There are two flavours of GBH. Both require the same level of injury by they differ in what the assailant intended.
You cannot usually consent to the infliction of GBH, although you can consent to acts that risk causing really serious injury. Sport is a good example, rugby players do not set out to injure one another in a normal match, but there is always a risk it will happen. If it does then a player who inflicts GBH as part of the game will not be guilty of an offence. You can consent to GBH as part of a medical condition, e.g. an operation. Consent to some cosmetic procedures, such as a body piercing, will also provide a defence.
Section 20 GBH
Section 20 GBH, also known as wounding and inflicting grievous bodily harm, can be committed either intentionally or recklessly. A defendant who intends to cause some minor harm but unintentionally inflicts GBH will be guilty under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Section 18 GBH
Section 18 GBH, also known as wounding or causing GBH with intent, is the most serious form of assault short of murder. In includes the intentional infliction of any really serious injury that does not result in death.
The key difference between section 20 and section 18 is that here the offender must intend to inflict really serious injury, mere recklessness whether injury is caused is not sufficient.
Sentencing GBH
The maximum sentence for section 20 GBH is five-years imprisonment. For a section 18 GBH, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
As with all the other assaults we’ve looked at, the court will assess the culpability of the offender and the harm caused to the victim when passing sentence. Sentences can vary widely but anybody convicted of GBH should expect a prison sentence.
Conclusion
There are a variety of charges available to the prosecution. This post has only looked at a handful of the most common offences.
All assaults are built upon the elements of common assault. The main difference is the level of injury inflicted upon the victim. GBH involves the most serious type of injury and where you inflict that injury intentionally you face a life in prison.
Accused of assault, don’t risk going with any solicitor. Speak to us and you’ll see how we can defend you and keep you out of a prison cell. Call us today on 020 8242 4496 or send a message via our contact page.