... issues. Firstly, the piercing of the ear itself and for the passing of infection (blood poisoning). As regards to the piercing clearly this would involve a breaking of the skin JJC v Eisenhover and therefore can be classified as a wound and this the requirement for S 18 and 20 of the OAPA. However, S 18 would be largely irrelevant since there is no intention to cause GBH but for S 20 the requirement are more likely to be met. For S 20 the must be malicious as to the act which had been interpreted to mean that there is an intention or Cunning ham Reckless as to the act of the piercing. On the facts L intended t pierce J's ears, the next requirement is however that for S 20 although GBH need not be intended there must be actually some foresight of physical harm R v Mowatt. Clearly physical ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now