Two people robbed a man and when he demanded to know from D where D’s accomplice (who had taken his money) had gone, D knocked the man over and punched him a few times. He was charged with robbery and wounding under s.20. He was convicted, though the judge gave no direction on the word maliciously. His appeal was dismissed since, the CA said, no direction was necessary where malice was obvious, meaning where any ordinary person could see that some harm might result. Diplock says that “clearly any ordinary man would realise that some physical harm would be sustained by the victim” and hence there must be some intent.
