4

I'm trying to understand the following statement (which is section 53 of the Crimes Act 1961 in New Zealand, bolding mine) -

"Every one in peaceable possession of any movable thing under a claim of right, and every one acting under his or her authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending his or her possession by the use of reasonable force, even against a person entitled by law to possession, if he or she does not strike or do bodily harm to the other person."

FWIW, the only relevant information in the Interpretation section of the act states -

"to injure means to cause actual bodily harm"

I realise I don't understand the exact meaning of bodily harm.

A (fictitious) scenario - I'm reading a book I bought with money from a joint account and another owner of the account attempts to snatch the book from me. If I prevent this by accidentally scratching that person while so doing, have I caused them bodily harm?

Is it relevant if I just grazed the skin or if there is a line of blood? What if I did not cause visible damage but caused pain which lasted a short while?

The problem I have here is the juxtaposition of "reasonable force" and "bodily harm"

Thinking further, what is the difference between bodily harm and grievous bodily harm?

FD_bfa
  • 6,468
  • 1
  • 21
  • 80
davidgo
  • 3,529
  • 14
  • 25

1 Answers1

2

Your post has a few questions. I will attempt to address each in turn.

You say:

I realise I don't understand the exact meaning of bodily harm.

As the name suggests, actual bodily harm (ABH) is a type of "bodily harm". This has a specific legal meaning, usually in the context of assaults. In , the case of R v Miller [1954] defines ABH as any hurt or injury that interferes with the comfort or health of the victim. It must be more than "transient or trifling", but need not be serious or permanent. Bodily harm, on the other hand, is not a legal term. It is intentionally broad so as to include the physical component of battery (this includes ABH and more minor physical harm, such as pushing the other person).

Next, you present the following scenario:

I'm reading a book I bought with money from a joint account and another owner of the account attempts to snatch the book from me. If I prevent this by accidentally scratching that person while so doing, have I caused them bodily harm?

Is it relevant if I just grazed the skin or if there is a line of blood? What if I did not actually cause visible damage but caused pain which lasted a short while?

This is a question of fact, not law. The extent of the scratch will largely impact whether this constitutes ABH. For example, a scratch that causes minor discomfort for a few seconds and leaves no visible mark is unlikely to constitute ABH. But one that draws blood is. Of course, this doesn't mean you have committed an offence (eg self-defence can be a valid reason to commit ABH). However, all of these examples would be sufficient to meet the physical element required for battery.

Lastly, you ask:

Thinking on this further, what is the difference between [actual] bodily harm and grievous bodily harm?

Grievous bodily harm (GBH) is an extension of ABH where the consequences are more severe. In DPP v Smith [1961], this was defined as "really serious harm" and it is left to juries to decide on the extent of this. There has since been case law to clarify the severity required to constitute GBH, although it remains somewhat subjective. For example, although a fractured skull would constitute GBH, it is much less clear when psychiatric problems can amount to GBH (which is possible as per R v Burstow [1997]).

FD_bfa
  • 6,468
  • 1
  • 21
  • 80