Discuss the potential criminal liability of Jonty and Patrick for the non-fatal offences against the person, including any relevant defences (50 marks)

Jonty is likely to liable for an s20 or s18 offence under the Offences against the Persons Act 1861. S20 is the malicious wounding or inflicting GBH with intention or subjective recklessness as to causing some harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years. This is the same maximum sentence as an s47 offence which can be seen as a problematic area in the law which is in need of reform. Jonty’s act of hitting Patrick hard across the back of his head satisfies the actus reus for wounding. As defined in JCC v Eisenhower (1983), wounding is ‘a cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin’, and held that a cut must be of the whole skin and a scratch is not considered as a wound. However, Saunders (1985) overruled the definition of GBH from DPP v Smith (1961), where the definition went from ‘really serious harm’ to ‘serious harm’. Jonty clearly had wounded Patrick, and although not life threatening Patricks injuries can still amount to GBH, and it is only needed to show that his actions led to the consequences of V’s GBH. This was ruled in Burstow (1997) where ‘inflict’ didn’t require a technical assault or battery.
Jonty may be liable for s 39 of Criminal Justice Act 1988 for battery. Battery is the application of unlawful force or violence with intention or subjective recklessness to applying the unlawful force. This includes the slightest touching which is shown by Collins v Wilcock(1984) where the officer unlawfully held V’s arm which was enough to for battery. Jonty unlawfully kicked Patrick therefore constituted a battery. Jonty committed a further battery when he grabs the official’s jacket. In Thomas (1985) it was held by the Court of Appeal that if you touch a person’s clothes while he is wearing