This advice will discuss the potential criminal liability of Sean, Sanjay, and Ravi for the events described. Each individual’s actions will be considered chronologically to establish which offences may have been committed under the law of England and Wales.
Sean
Sean’s liability arises from his physical attack on Sanjay. The facts state that Sean jumped on Sanjay, “punching and kicking him,” which resulted in “serious injuries, including three broken ribs.” These actions constitute a non-fatal offence against the person, governed by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861).
The level of injury suggests an offence of Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). The leading case of *DPP v Smith* [1961] AC 290 defined GBH as “really serious harm.” Three broken ribs would almost certainly meet this threshold. The key offences are found in sections 20 and 18 of the OAPA 1861.
Section 20 of the OAPA 1861 makes it an offence to unlawfully and maliciously inflict GBH. The *actus reus* is the infliction of GBH, which has been established by the serious injuries. The *mens rea* for section 20 is “maliciously,” which was interpreted in *R v Mowatt* [1976] 3 All ER 593 to mean that the defendant must intend or be reckless as to causing *some* harm, not necessarily serious harm. By punching and kicking Sanjay, Sean clearly intended to cause at least some harm. Therefore, Sean would be liable for a section 20 offence.
A more serious charge under section 18 of the OAPA 1861 could also be considered. This requires the same *actus reus* but has a higher *mens rea* requirement of specific intent to cause GBH. The prosecution might argue that a sustained attack of punching and kicking demonstrates such an intent. However, proving this specific intent can be difficult, and a conviction under section 20 is more straightforward on the facts.
Sanjay
Sanjay’s liability must be assessed in two parts: his initial attempt at revenge and his involvement with Ravi.
First, Sanjay takes a baseball bat with the intention of beating Sean up. He hides and waits for Sean to appear. This raises the issue of an attempted offence under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (CAA 1981). Section 1(1) of the CAA 1981 states that a person is guilty of an attempt if, with intent to commit an offence, they do an act which is “more than merely preparatory” to its commission. Sanjay clearly has the *mens rea* (intent) to commit at least an assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 OAPA 1861), if not GBH.
The issue is whether his actions were “more than merely preparatory.” In *R v Gullefer* [1990] 3 All ER 882, it was held that the defendant must have “embarked on the crime proper.” By arming himself, travelling to the location, and lying in wait for his specific victim, it is arguable that Sanjay has gone beyond mere preparation and embarked on the commission of the assault. The fact that he gives up when the police appear is irrelevant, as once the offence of attempt is complete, subsequent abandonment is no defence. Sanjay is therefore likely liable for attempted assault.
Second, Sanjay agrees to act as “back-up” for Ravi, who intends to stab Sean. This initial agreement could constitute an inchoate offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, such as assisting or encouraging an offence. However, when they arrive at the flat, Sanjay changes his mind and communicates his withdrawal to Ravi, saying, “This has gone too far… let’s just go home!” For a withdrawal to be effective, it must be timely and unequivocal (*R v Becerra and Cooper* (1975) 62 Cr App R 212). Sanjay’s statement is a clear communication of his withdrawal to the principal offender, Ravi, before the intended crime has been committed. This withdrawal would be effective to absolve him of secondary liability for what Ravi does next.
Ravi
Ravi’s liability stems from his actions at Sean’s flat. He kicks down Sean’s front door and enters the property with a knife, intending to stab Sean. His first offence is aggravated burglary under section 10 of the Theft Act 1968.
The offence of burglary under section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 is committed when a person enters a building as a trespasser with intent to commit an ulterior offence, such as inflicting GBH. Ravi entered the flat as a trespasser by kicking the door down, and his stated intention to “stab Sean” demonstrates a clear intent to inflict GBH (an offence under s.18 OAPA 1861). The burglary becomes “aggravated” under section 10 because Ravi had a “weapon of offence” (the knife) with him at the time of the burglary. He is therefore clearly liable for aggravated burglary.
Furthermore, upon entering, Ravi finds Sean already dead. This makes the intended crime of murder or s.18 GBH factually impossible to complete. However, section 1(2) of the CAA 1981 states that a person can be guilty of an attempt even if the commission of the offence is impossible. The House of Lords confirmed in *R v Shivpuri* [1987] AC 1 that liability is to be judged on the facts as the defendant believed them to be. Ravi believed Sean was alive and intended to stab him. He had taken more than merely preparatory steps by breaking in with a knife. Consequently, Ravi is also liable for attempted murder or attempted s.18 GBH.
References
*DPP v Smith* [1961] AC 290
*R v Becerra and Cooper* (1975) 62 Cr App R 212
*R v Gullefer* [1990] 3 All ER 882
*R v Mowatt* [1976] 3 All ER 593
*R v Shivpuri* [1987] AC 1
Criminal Attempts Act 1981
Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Serious Crime Act 2007
Theft Act 1968
