Body injury is an art law term used in the definition of both offense and general law violations in Australia, Canada, England and Wales and other common law jurisdictions. This is a synonym for injury or bodily injury and similar expression, although it can be used with the appropriate and limited meaning in the given jurisdiction. The phrasing of serious bodily harm first appeared in the law in the Lord Ellenborough Act (1803).
Video Bodily harm
Canada
In the Canadian Criminal Code, "bodily harm" is defined as "any injury or injury to a person who interferes with the person's health or comfort and is more than temporary or trivial."
Maps Bodily harm
England and Wales
Expression is not specified by any law. Currently appearing in a number of violations under the Violation of Person Act 1861 (18, 20, 23, 26, 28, 29, 31, 35, and 47) and in theft violation under the 1968 Theft Act (9). It is also used in the definition of murder (as it appears in a legal case) under painful guise.
Psychiatric disorders
Non-physical psychiatric injuries or can be regarded as "actual" or "miserable" body damage, but there must be formal medical evidence to verify the injury.
Di R v Ireland, Rv Burstow, Lord Steyn berkata:
The proposition that Victorian lawmakers when enacting sections 18, 20 and 47 of the 1861 Act, would not have in mind that psychiatric illness is undoubtedly true. Psychiatry was still in its early stages in 1861.
In modern times, the practice of interpretation by law often refers to the true intentions of the draftsman as expressed in the words of the Act, but is considered in the light of contemporary knowledge. R v. Chan Fook applies this approach. Hobhouse LJ. said the prosecutor "chose to introduce into the case of allegations that even if Mr. Martins had not suffered any physical injury at all as a result of an attack on him by the Petitioner, he has remained reduced to a mental state which in itself, without more, the only evidence that the prosecutor could allege to support this allegation was proof that Martins felt harassed and humiliated, that he had been threatened with further violence, and that he was frightened "There is no medical or psychiatric evidence to support the allegations that. There's no evidence that he's in a state of shock anytime before he receives the wounds he suffered as a result of falling out of the window. "
Hobhouse LJ. berkata:
The first question of attraction at this time is whether the inclusion of the word "body" is the phrase "true body danger" limits the danger to harm the victim's skin, flesh and bones. Mr. Justice Lynskey refused this submission. According to our judgment, he has the right to do so. The body of the victim covers all parts of his body, including his organs, his nervous system and his brain. Physical injuries may therefore include injuries to parts of his body responsible for mental and other faculties.
He goes on to say:
Thus, the phrase "actual body damage" can include psychiatric injuries. But it does not include mere emotions such as fear or distress or panic nor are included, therefore, a state of mind that is not evidence of some identifiable clinical conditions.
He said that the jury "should not be directed that an attack that causes a hysterical and nervous condition is an attack that causes actual physical damage".
This was followed by the High Court in R v Constanza, and the House of Lords that asserted the principle at R v Burstow , R v Ireland . Ireland caused three women suffering from psychiatric illness. Burstow victims are afraid of personal violence and are diagnosed with severe depression. The best current medical practice accepts the relationship between the body and psychiatric injuries, so the words "bodily harm" in sections 20 and 47 are capable of covering recognized psychiatric diseases, such as anxiety disorders or depressive disorders, affecting the central nervous system. body system. However, to qualify, the neurosis must be more than a simple fear, or a problem in the face of everyday life, which does not include psychiatric illness.
Sexually transmitted diseases and other infectious diseases
See R v. Dica [2004] EWCA Crim 1103
The Law Commission expressed its view that "the cause of a deliberate or reckless illness should not be beyond the scope of the criminal law" and there is an ongoing debate over whether HIV transmission is included as a sad body injury or under sections 22 to 24 of Violations of the Person Act 1861.
In R v Clarence, it appears that at a time when the inmates knew, but his wife did not know, that he had gonorrhea, he had a "connection" with him; that the result was that the disease was communicated to him, and that he was aware of the condition of the prisoner he would not bring to the sexual relationship.
Lord Coleridge CJ, Pollock and Huddleston BB, Stephen, Manisty, Mathew, AL Smith, Wills and Grantham JJ., Declared that the behavior of prisoners was not as bad as under section 20 or section 47. Field, Hawkins, Day and Charles JJ. disagree.
Wills J. said "the fact is... that he infected him, and that from such an infection he suffered severe painful injuries".
Hawkins J. berkata:
Under these circumstances, inmates engage in sexual relations with their wives and by doing so communicate to him his illness and thereby cause his wounded body injuries.
Field J. says (footnotes have been included in the body of the text, indicated by "(1)"):
I think it is also clear that if the man's condition is such that it is the natural and natural consequence of contact to communicate the infectious disease to the woman, and he does so, it actually raises both "actual" and "painful body hazards." Such actions result in what the great authority, Lord Stowell, calls "the most vicious injury:" see note for Durant v. Durant. (1) 1 Hagg. Eccl. Case, 768.
Unconscious
Lihat T v. DPP [2003] EWHC 266 (Admin), [2003] Crim LR 622.
Rambut
Lihat DPP v. Smith [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin)
Pain or pain such as persistent headache, vomiting, joint pain, abdominal pain not caused by physical trauma
Mentioned in R v. Morris (Clarence Barrington) [1998] Cr App R 386
Severe pain followed by tenderness and pain for some time afterwards
This may be a real physical damage, although no physical injuries are seen. See Reigate Justices ex p.Ã, Counsell (1984) 148 JP 193, DC
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments