Golding, R v

For an offence under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, grievous bodily harm means really serious bodily harm. It need not be permanent, dangerous, treated, or have lasting consequences. Its seriousness is assessed by its effect on the particular victim and is ordinarily a jury question.

A person who knows of a sexual infection and has intercourse with a partner unaware of it may recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm. A valid guilty plea remains effective where it was informed, voluntary and supported by evidence capable of proving the offence. A failure to follow prosecutorial guidance does not itself invalidate a prosecution or conviction; the court decides the case on its merits.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Northampton Crown Court to recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm by transmitting genital herpes to CS, contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He received 14 months’ imprisonment.

He appealed against conviction, alleging failures to follow CPS guidance, inadequate representation, an uninformed guilty plea, and insufficient evidence of infection, grievous bodily harm and recklessness. The Court of Appeal admitted fresh medical and factual evidence. It also considered his appeal against sentence, including the substantial delay while he had remained on bail.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appellant’s guilty plea was unequivocal, informed and voluntary. He had received detailed advice about the evidence, the available choices and the possible sentence. The judge had made clear that he could contest the charge.

2. Failure to comply fully with CPS charging guidance did not itself provide a defence, bar the prosecution, or render the conviction unsafe. In the absence of oppression or misconduct, the case had to be determined on its merits. Any evidential deficiency could be addressed at trial or, on appeal, through fresh evidence.

3. The evidence available when the plea was entered was capable of proving each element of section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It permitted an inference that the appellant transmitted the infection and acted recklessly. The fresh evidence strengthened, rather than undermined, the inference of transmission and did not affect the admission of recklessness.

4. Genital herpes was capable of amounting to really serious bodily harm. The condition was incurable, the initial infection was painful and debilitating, and recurrences might continue indefinitely. Grievous bodily harm need not be permanent or dangerous. Its assessment depends on the effect on the particular victim and is ultimately for a jury applying contemporary standards. CS’s psychological distress, without evidence of a recognised psychiatric illness, could not itself constitute bodily harm, although it was relevant to sentence.

5. A person suffering from a sexual disease who has intercourse with a partner unaware of the condition may recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm. No prior assault is required. The constituent elements remain fact-specific and ordinarily fall for a jury.

6. The appeal against sentence was allowed to a limited extent. Although the original 14-month sentence was proper, the exceptional, blameless delay and its detrimental effect on the appellant’s life justified reducing it to three months’ imprisonment, which he had already served.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted an extension of time and leave to appeal. It dismissed the conviction appeal and allowed the sentence appeal only by substituting three months’ imprisonment for 14 months.

• Northampton Crown Court: The appellant pleaded guilty on 18 July 2011 to an offence under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and was sentenced on 9 August 2011 to 14 months’ imprisonment.