R v Bollom [2004]

1. Facts:

• The defendant (D) was convicted of grievous bodily harm (GBH) for causing multiple bruises to a young girl after dropping her.

• The injuries were assessed in the context of the victim’s age and physical characteristics.

2. Outcome:

• The Court of Appeal allowed D's appeal.

• It was determined that the jury should consider the characteristics of the victim (V) when assessing whether the injuries constituted GBH.

• The conviction was reduced to actual bodily harm (ABH) rather than GBH.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Assessment of GBH: The case clarified that the severity of harm for GBH must be evaluated with regard to the victim's personal characteristics. The scope of what constitutes GBH was narrowed, taking into account factors such as the victim’s age and vulnerability.

• Legal Definition: The decision expanded the scope of GBH by emphasising that seriousness should be judged from the perspective of the victim's condition, rather than a universal standard.

• Comparison to French Law: Unlike French law, which defines serious harm as requiring at least 20 days off work, common law does not provide a precise definition of serious harm. This case highlighted the need for contextual judgment in determining the level of harm inflicted.