This case clarified the mens rea required for offences under sections 20 and 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. It confirmed that a subjective test applies: for section 20, the defendant must actually foresee that some physical harm might result, although it need not be of the severity that occurred. The case also highlighted when an alternative verdict of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s47) may be substituted. 

• Parmenter: The appellant, father of a 3-month-old baby, handled his child roughly, causing injuries. He had no experience with infants and did not realize that his actions could cause harm. Convicted of s20 offences.

• Savage: The appellant threw beer over a woman (former girlfriend of her husband). During the act, the glass slipped from her hand and cut the complainant’s wrist. She was convicted of s20 unlawful wounding.

• Whether, for a conviction under s20 OAPA 1861, the defendant must actually foresee the harm, or whether it is sufficient that a reasonable person would have foreseen it (objective test).

• Whether, in the absence of s20 intent, an alternative verdict of s47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm can be substituted.

• The convictions under s20 were quashed where the jury had been misdirected on subjective foresight of harm.

• For s20 offences, the defendant must actually foresee that some physical harm may result; objective foresight is insufficient.

• For s47 offences, a conviction may be substituted if the assault was established and actual bodily harm resulted, regardless of intention or foresight of the exact severity.

• The jury should consider subjective appreciation of risk; recklessness in the objective sense is insufficient for s20.

1. Mens rea for s20 OAPA 1861: Defendant must subjectively foresee some physical harm, even if not of the actual severity caused.

2. Alternative verdicts: s47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm can be a proper alternative if an assault occurred and harm resulted.

3. Objective recklessness (ought to have foreseen) is not sufficient for s20 offences; subjective foresight is required.

4. Distinguishes between intention/subjective foresight for s20 and causation of actual harm for s47.