Edwards V. Billy Case

Words: 1699
Pages: 7

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 - This is the appellant’s skeleton argument for his appeal. The appellant ‘Billy’ was convicted under s.18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) for causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) to the victim ‘Anita’. The arguments to render the conviction under s. 18 OAPA unsafe, are grounded in the three misdirection’s made by the judge during the trial.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 - Billy and Anita was in a 12-year long relationship and were living together. Their relationship involved engaging in inflicting pain on each other for sexual gratification. On the occasion in question, Billy was pulling Anita’s hair forcefully, but with clear consent and encouragement. Once Anita asked him to stop, as she was feeling dizzy, he did so immediately.

2.2 - However, due to her dizziness she fell down the stairs and suffered a head injury. Billy proceeded to ensure Anita was alright and soon after called an ambulance.

2.3 - When Anita arrived at the hospital her doctor ‘Dr Edwards’ failed to properly check the patient’s notes. Consequently, this left blood building up around her brain, which ultimately resulted in a 10-month long coma.

3. SUMMARY OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL
3.1 - The judge
…show more content…
The judge’s misdirection is likely due to the general reluctance of allowing defences for violent sexual activity. The case of Brown best illustrates this. On that premise, the misdirection is arguably non-influential to the outcome. However, the facts of the current case are significantly different from Brown or Emmett, but also somewhat different from Wilson where consent was relied upon. In Brown, sexual acts included “Nailing by A of B’s foreskin”. In Emmett, it involved placing a plastic bag on the victim’s head and setting her on fire. It is unreasonable to compare these horrendously violent acts to that of ‘pulling hair forcefully’. Albeit, the result in the current case was more severe. However, the result was due to substantially different