A youth was resisting arrest and fell to the ground. He kicked a police officer who was trying to pick him up, fracturing the policeman’s hand. He was convicted of occasioning actual bodily harm. His appeal was dismissed on the grounds that recklessness was a sufficient mental element to form the necessary intent of a criminal assault. An injury inflicted recklessly constituted the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Judge said that he couldn’t understand why the crown put forward recklessness as opposed to intent (which there clearly was). Nevertheless, in many cases the dividing line between intent and recklessness is barely perceptible and furthermore they see no reason why one who risks injuring another person should not be made liable (there being no parliamentary guidance on the matter).
