Doyle, R v

For a section 18 offence, grievous bodily harm may properly be described to a jury as serious bodily harm. The addition of “really” does not impose a separate or higher legal threshold, but emphasises that the harm must in fact be serious.

A summing-up must be read as a whole. A judge may invite jurors to use their ordinary understanding of serious harm, provided the direction requires an objective assessment of the evidence and does not substitute a personal, subjective test. Where there is evidence from which a jury could find serious injury, the issue should be left to it.

The appellant was convicted at Exeter Crown Court of causing grievous bodily harm with intent after an assault on Michael Lumley. The evidence included injuries to the victim’s eye and a genital injury causing loss of skin and scarring.

On appeal against conviction, the appellant contended that the Recorder had misdirected the jury by referring to “serious” rather than “really serious” harm, and by using a hypothetical question said to invite a subjective assessment. He also sought to renew a ground that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury at the close of the prosecution evidence.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court held that the Recorder’s summing-up contained no misdirection on grievous bodily harm.

2. The direction correctly treated grievous bodily harm as serious bodily harm. The court followed Saunders [1985] Crim LR 230, which treated omission of “really” before “serious bodily harm” as immaterial. “Really” does not create a distinct legal standard. It serves only to emphasise that the harm must actually be serious.

3. The Recorder’s reference to what a person might say to friends about the injuries did not impose a subjective test when read in context. He repeatedly directed the jury to decide, as members of the public and on the evidence of the victim, doctors and witnesses, whether the injuries were serious. The direction therefore left the required assessment to the jury on a proper basis.

4. There was ample evidence from which the jury could decide that the injuries amounted to grievous bodily harm. It would have been inappropriate to withdraw that issue from them. The conviction accordingly stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appellant’s conviction appeal: [2004] EWCA Crim 2714.
• Exeter Crown Court — on 7 November 2003, following a trial before Recorder Still, convicted the appellant of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.