He was charged with the offence of administering a noxious substances s.23 Act which required the defendant to maliciously administer a noxious thing to endanger life or inflict GBH. Actus reus is the conduct of the accused. directed by the doctor. R v Chan Fook (1994) Psychiatric harm can amount to ABH (however mere emotions can not) . Significance of V's age. Occasioning In R v Constanza, the defendant wrote the victim letters which caused the victim to feel threatened, either now or in the future. (i) Intention to do some grievous bodily harm or (ii) with intention to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainment of any person. mens rea would be trying to scare her as a practical joke. R v Bollom. This button displays the currently selected search type. Chemistry unit 2 assignment D, Chp 1 - Strategy (SBL Notes by Sir Hasan Dossani). Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. An intent to wound is insufficient. His appeal was allowed, holding that the correct interpretation of maliciously for the purposes of s.20 is intent or a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm and being reckless as to that harm occurring. Terms in this set (13) Facts. In this casethe defendant put a metal bar across the exit of a theatre, turned off the lights and then shouted fire, fire! which provoked people to run towards the exit where the bar was. The actus reus of assault may be an act or an omission. There is criticism with regards to the definition of wounding which can be satisfied by a very low level of harm, for example a paper cut. The non-fatal offences that I will describe in this video are assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm/wounding. Once the level of harm has been quantified, it needs to be shown that the harm was inflicted by the defendant. A shop keeper was held liable even though it was his employee who had sold the lottery ticket to the child. All offences will start in the magistrates court regardless of how severe it is PART 2 - The House of Commons: The most powerful of Parliament's two houses. Finally, the force which is threatened must be unlawful. R v Wilson [1984] AC 242 overruled Clarence in this regard and held this was not the case. which will affect him mentally. verdict. For example, punching someone in the face, intending to break their nose. Learn. certain rules to comply, if they dont they may be sentenced. Intention can be direct or indirect. The statutory policy is to apply pressure to those who have dissipated (or more usually laundered) their assets during a . R v Brown and Stratton [1988] Crim LR 484 stated that judges should not attempt to define this any further to a jury and that this is a wholly objective assessment. This includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. arm.-- In Jons case, he was irresponsible and it was foreseeable that scaring someone on The defendant was out in the pub when she saw her husbands ex-girlfriend. Check out Adapt the A-level & GCSE revision timetable app. Accordingly, the defendant appealed. 2. This is well illustrated by DPP v Smith, where the defendant cut off the victims pony tail and some hair from the top of her head without her consent. He appealed on the basis of a misdirection and it was held that malicious is properly defined as possessing an actual intention to cause the harm or subjective recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not. Case in Focus: R v Ireland and Burstow [1997] UKHL 34. -- R v Bollom -- V's age and health should be taken into consideration when deciding if an injury can amount to GBH or not D must CAUSE V's wound: factual causation with BUT FOR and Pagett legal causation with OPERATIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL and Smith D must also cause V's GBH: both as above verdict Case in Focus: R v Brown and Stratton [1988] Crim LR 484. Grievous bodily harm (GBH) and Wounding are the most serious of the non-fatal offences against the person, charged under s.18 and s.20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. One can go even further in the definition of the battery and argue that the touching of the hem of a skirt constitues a battery. Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the The actus reus of a s offence is identical to the actus reus of a s offence. voluntary act and omission is that it does not make an individual liable for a criminal act Beths statement indicates that she couldnt be bothered to turn Oliver His disturbing and relentless behaviour caused the victim to suffer from severe depression, insomnia and panic attacks. The defendant felt threatened by the demands and knocked the victim to the floor, repeatedly punching him in the face. She succeeded in her case that the officer had committed battery, as he had gone beyond mere touching and had tried to restrain her, even though she was not being arrested. statutory definition for assault or battery. foresee a risk or result and unreasonably go on to take the risk. is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant), R v Roberts (1972)- concussion; grazes Direct intention is easy to comprehend; it is the very thing the defendant was actually intending to achieve when he did an act. If this is evidenced, then the actus reus for the s.20 offence is satisfied and it is not necessary to prove the GBH element in addition for a charge to be available as this is an alternative element. that V should require treatment or that the harm should have lasting consequences ultimately, the Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. The court can take into consideration particular characteristics of the victim to decide whether the injuries amount to GBH . The act i, unless done with a guilty mind. was required a brain surgery which is a severe case. This definition may seem surprising as it does not follow the usual understanding of wound which implies a more serious level of harm than a mere split in the skin, for which a pin prick could qualify. A battery may occur as part of a continuing act. not necessary for us to set out why that was so because the statutory language is clear. At trial the judge directed the jury incorrectly, stating that malicious meant that the unlawful act was deliberately aimed towards the victim and resulted in the wound. and it must be a voluntary act that causes damage or harm. 25% off till end of Feb! R v Aitken and Others (1992)- burns Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01, The normal rules of causation apply to dete, is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so tr, Introductory Econometrics for Finance (Chris Brooks), Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (Humphrey P. Rang; James M. Ritter; Rod J. This was changed in R v Saunders, where the word really was removed from the definition so as to clarify the nature of the offence. Reference this s47 because its harm to the body but not significant damage and shes broken a duty of causes harm to a victim, the offender can also be required to pay compensation. Facts. The offence is indictable only which means it must be heard and sentenced at crown court. Section 20 of the Offence Against the Persons Act provides: Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof. Furthermore, loss of consciousness, even for a moment, can be argued to be actual bodily harm, as illustrated by T v DPP. the lawful apprehension of any person, shall be guilty. health or comfort of V. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than Case in Focus: R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. His actus reus was pushing PC Adamski over and his mens rea was . for a discharge or a fine but not so serious that a sentence must be given. This does not marry up to wounding as society would understand it to be. In section 18, the defendant must have intended to do some grievous bodily harm. malicious and not intended to hurt Zika, he has now caused her an injury by scaring her. In R v Miller the court stated that actual bodily harm was any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. If the GBH or wound is caused when the defendant is intending to resist an unlawful arrest, then this will be insufficient to satisfy the mens rea of the offence. Result, crimes where the actus reus of the offence requi, as directed.-- In Beth's case, she is a care professional who has a duty to look after her, patients and direct them to the doctors when needed, because of Beths carelessne, indirectly injured her patient and breached her duty of care. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. At trial the judge directed the jury that malicious meant wicked and the defendant was convicted. He suffered genital herpes, but had unprotected sex and acknowledged acting recklessly. In upholding his conviction Fulford J stated at paragraph 52 To use this case as an example, these injuries on a 6 foot adult in the fullness of health would be less serious than on, for instance, an elderly or unwell person, on someone who was physically or psychiatrically vulnerable or, as here, on a very young child. This was seen in R v Dica, where the defendant caused the victim to become infected with the HIV virus by having unprotected sex without informing them that he was _HIV-positive. Case in Focus: R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396. For the purposes of intention to cause GBH the maliciously element of the mens rea imposes no further requirement. Lastly a prison sentence-prison "these injuries on a 6ft adult would be less serious than on the elderly or someone who is physically or psychiatrically vulnerable. The scope of this foresight was highlighted in DPP v A (2000) 164 JP 317 where the Court clarified that the defendant is only required to foresee that some harm might occur, not that it would occur. A harm can be a. GBH even though it would not pose a risk to the life of the victim (R v . Furthermore, there is no offence if the victim perceives that there is no threat. committing similar offences. Beth works at a nursing home. In a problem question make sure to establish this point where a minor wound occurs as you need to show the examiner that you appreciate the difference between the Charging Standards and the binding legal definition of a wound. trends shows that offenders are still offending the second time after receiving a fine and There must be an intent to cause really serious bodily injury. The glass slipped out of her hands and smashed into pieces, cutting the victim's wrist. Back then infection was common as tetanus shots, antibiotics were not as readily available as they are today, and people did not possess the knowledge of sterilisation, sanitation and treating wounds that we hold at present. community sentences however some offenders stay out of trouble after being released from R v Belfon Judgment Weekly Law Reports Cited authorities 14 Cited in 15 Precedent Map Related Vincent Categories Tort Negligence Practice and Procedure Hearing Damages and Restitution Injuries Crime and Sentencing Offences against the Person [1976] EWCA Crim J0319-9 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Before: It should be noted that the ruling in Ireland and Burstow was keen to clarify that cause and inflict are not one and the same, however there is no case law at present that points to a distinguishable difference. R v Bollom (2004) 2 Cr App R 6 . The mere fact that the same injuries on a healthy adult would be less serious does not alter the fact that in determining the appropriate charge, due regard must be had for the actual harm suffered by the victim. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! R v Morrison (1989) drug addiction or alcohol abuse. For example in Tuberville v Savage, the defendant threatened the victim, but then qualified the threat by stating that the threat wouldnt be carried out at that time, showing that he wasnt going to do anything. The facts of the cases of both men were similar. 44 Q R v Savage (1991): on a s charge, a conviction under s is available as an alternative another must be destroyed or damaged. DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 explained that GBH should be given its ordinary and natural meaning, that is really serious harm. Discharges are Section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 provides: Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of felony. Reduce 43 Q What is the mens rea for section 20 GBH? This led to several people injuring themselves whilst trying to open the door. There must be a cut to the whole of the skin so that the skin is no longer intact. D was convicted under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) D appealed on the basis that V's injuries did not . Judicial precedent is best understood as a practice of the courts and not as a set of binding rules. R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615 . Test. In the Ireland case, the appellant was convicted of three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm for harassing three women by making repeated silent telephone calls to them. However, a cut could theoretically suffice where the greater level of harm was the intention. This would be a subjective recklessness as being a nurse she knew R v Ireland and Burstow [1997] UKHL 34 clarified that the harm does not have to be physical and that a serious psychiatric injury could amount to GBH. Protect the public from the offender and from the risk of Q1 - Write a summary about your future Higher Education studies by answering the following questions. and get an apology. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Furthermore there are types of sentences that the court can impose Both defendants held the same intention and carried out the same act and yet only one of them will face a homicide charge. For example, a defendant punches a thin pain of glass that the victim is standing behind, intending to break the glass but realising that in doing that it is virtually certain that he will hit the victim, even though this is not his primary intention. Subjective recklessness is that a defendant must Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. Regina v Bollom: CACD 8 Dec 2003. R v Bollom (2004) 2 Cr App R 6 The defendant was convicted of GBH under s.18 OAPA 1861 for injuries he inflicted on his partner's 17 month old daughter. The Commons, Unit 7 Tort Law Distinction Tasks A,B,C,D, Legal personnel, the elements of crime and sentencing PART 1, , not only on the foresight of the risk, but also on the reasonableness of the, This would be a subjective recklessness as being a nurse she knew, because its harm to the body but not significant damage and she, would back this up as the defendant did not adequately fulfill their duty, Criminal law practice exam 2018, questions and answers, Introduction to Strategic Management (UGB202), Business Law and Practice (LPC) (7LAW1091-0901-2019), Access To Higher Education Diploma (Midwifery), Access to Health Professionals (4000773X), Business Data Analysis (BSS002-6/Ltn/SEM1), Introduction to English Language (EN1023), MATH3510-Actuarial Mathematics 1-Lecture Notes release, Physiology Year 1 Exam, questions and answers essay, Unit 5 Final Sumission - Cell biology, illustrated report, Summary - complete - notes which summarise the entirety of year 1 dentistry, Revision Notes - BLP Exam - Notes 1[2406]. Whether a jury may consider a victims particular sensitivities and characteristics in assessing the extent of harm. R v Tierney (2009): on a s charge, a conviction of assault or battery is an alternative The actus reus for the offence can be broken down as follows: These criteria are satisfied in the same way as for the s.18 offence, with the only difference being in relation to the GBH which can be caused rather than inflicted. On this basis the jury convicted and the defendant appealed. The word grievous is taken to mean serious. There are serious issues with the description of the harm the provisions encompass: -. For a s18 wounding charge to be bought the defendant must have intended really serious harm. Should we take into consideration how vulnerable the victim is? For example, in relation to surgery, which in the absence of consent that would otherwise qualify as such unlawful harm. The Commons, PART 1 - The House of Commons: The most powerful of Parliament's two houses. As the amount of hair was substantial, the Divisional Court decided that the hair-cutting should amount to ABH. more crimes being committed by them. It carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. One new video every week (I accept requests and reply to everything!) The case R Zeika was so terrified, she turned to run and fell down the stairs, breaking her, top of the stairs, Zeika was bound to fall especially if she is a person who gets scared easily, The actus reus for Jon is putting on a scary mask and hiding at the top of the stairs and the. Breaking only one layer of skin would be insufficient, such as a cut to the inside of someones cheek. Restorative justice gives victims the chance to tell offenders about the impact of their crime Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01. any person with intent to do some GBH to any person, or with intent to resist arrest or prevent The injuries consisted of various bruises and abrasions. The first indicator of lawfulness is that the detainment takes the form of an arrest. [3] [25-28]. Looking to the enactment year of the Offences Against the Persons Act, which was back in 1861, provides some explanation as to why the two are treated with the same severity. And lastly make the offender give Bollom [2003]). Martin, R v (1881) 8 QBD 54; Thomas, R v (1985) Subscribe on YouTube. Despite being originally held not to be so in the case of R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, following R v Dica [2004] 3 ALL ER 593 Inflict now also encompasses the transmission of sexual diseases, such as HIV, where these are serious enough to be constituted as GBH, and the defendant is aware that there is a risk that they are suffering from the disease (R v Adaye (2004) unreported). The CPS Charging Standards do offer some guidance as to the type of injuries that may amount to GBH. The Court of Appeal referred the question to the House of Lords as to whether it was necessary under s.20 to establish that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the infliction of GBH or whether it was sufficient that the defendant foresaw some harm. We do not provide advice. This case exemplifies the type of harm that will be considered as GBH. DPP v Smith (2006)- cutting Vs hair. Case in Focus: R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421. imprisonment or a large sum of fine. Therefore the maximum sentence for ABH s47 is 5 years of imprisonment. It is the absolute maximum harm inflicted upon a person without it proving fatal. something back, for example, by the payment of compensation or through restorative justice. intended, for example R v Nedrick (1986). Facts The defendant inflicted various injuries upon his partner's seventeen month old child, including bruises and cuts. This was decided in R v Burstow, where the victim suffered sever depression as a result of being stalked by the defendant. Pay attention to this section as for an essay question you may be asked to provide a discussion as to the meaning of inflict. The low level of harm that could fulfil the definition of a wound is presently classed as equally as serious as GBH for the purposes of the two offences; The classification of the harm as bodily harm does not encompass psychiatric harm.Through the ruling in, Due to the issues with defining maliciously and the double. R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846 Whether a jury may consider a victim's particular sensitivities and characteristics in assessing the extent of harm. 26, Edis J (giving the judgment of the Court) said that R v Smith (Kim) "supports the proposition that this is the purpose of the tainted gift regime. It was presupposed to mean a direct application of harm with the understanding that a s20 offence required the GBH to be caused directly to the victim. The victim had been a 17 month old child who had received bruising and abrasions to her body arms and legs. This is shown in the case of R v Cunningham (1957). Law; Criminal law; A2/A-level; OCR; Created by: 10dhall; Created on: 15-06-17 21:14; What happened in this case? He put on a scary mask Flashcards. TJ. Consider two different defendants punching two different victims in the head. As with the law on ABH, the level of harm for GBH can include serious psychiatric injury. The positi, defendant's actions. Actual bodily harm. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. He put on a scary mask, shouted boo. Inflict for this purpose simply means cause. In Collins v Wilcock, the defendant was a police officer who took hold of a womans arm in order to prevent her walking away from him as he was questioning her about alleged prostitution. The actus reus of this offence can be broken down as follows: Inflicting harm is prima facie unlawful, therefore this requirement is satisfied simply in absence of an available defence such as self-defence or valid consent. the force for his arrest. All of the usual defences are available in relation to a charge of GBH. The difference between a sentences are given when an offence is so serious that it is deemed to be the only suitable A two-inch bruise for example on said 20-year-old might be painful but not really serious, whereas on a new born baby this would likely be indicative of a very severe risk to the health of the child. prison, doing unpaid work in the community, obeying a curfew or paying a fine. The defendant and his friend were out in the early hours of the morning. Or can be reckless if high risk and consent is not sought for that risk R v Konzani 2005 Crimes can be divided into two categories: Conduct crimes 27th Jun 2019 After all, inflicting the same injuries to a strong and healthy 21 year old and a frail 90 year old will usually result in very different levels of harm and so the law should reflect this. loss etc. However, today this is not the case and it is unusual for such wounds to escalate to that scale. Often such injuries did get infected and lead to death. As with the proposed s.20 offence, any reference to wounding or bodily harm is removed. If there is no wound as per the Eisenhower definition, then this does not negate the actus reus of the offence. The defendant was convicted under s.18 OAPA 1861 but it was left open for the jury to consider an offence under s.20. R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75. Age and frailty are factors that can be considered when deciding whether injuries are enough to be GBH. Finally, a battery can also be caused by an omission. A report has been filed showing Oliver, one of Beths patients If the offence voluntary act is a willing movement to harm someone. Therefore, through relevant sporting caselaw, it will be critically examined whether a participant's injury-causing act is an . To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: Free law resources to assist you with your LLB or SQE studies! Tom is walking down the street and a police officer grabs him, handcuffs him and tries to force him into the back of a police car. This can be established by applying the objective test and surrounding case law to assess whether the harm is really serious as per the Smith definition. be not directing Oliver to the doctors and her mens rea is that she couldn't be bothered to R v Burgess [1991] 2 WLR 1206. Several people were severely injured as a result of the defendants actions and he was charged under s.20 OAPA 1861. For the purposes of this element of the actus reus it must first be shown that the harm was grievous. Project Log book - Mandatory coursework counting towards final module grade and classification. However, following R v Woollin [1999] AC 82 the jury can find intention where although the result was not the exact desired consequence held by a defendant, it could be appreciated by the defendant himself that it was a virtually certain consequence of his act. restricting their activities or supervision by probation. R v Roberts (1972). Balancing Conflicting Interests Between Human Rights. This could include setting a booby trap. A wound is classified as a cut or break in the continuity of the skin. Any other such detainment is unlikely to be lawful. (GBH) means r eally serious har m (DPP v Smith [1961]). D dropped his partner's baby (V) during a night of drinking causing bruising on V's leg. V had sustained other injuries but evidence was unclear how. indirectly injured her patient and breached her duty of care. Whilst the injuries per se did not merit a charge of gross bodily harm under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act, at first instance the judge directed the jury to consider the young age of the victim, resulting in the defendant being found guilty under s. 20, which the defendant subsequently appealed. The defendant made it clear that it was never her intention to actually throw the glass or harm the victim in anyway. The answer heavily relies on the implied sporting consent principle. This is shown in the case of, Physical act and mens rea is the mental element. It is not unforeseeable that one of these will die as a result of the punch and sadly this often happens. If you are considering attempting this topic in an exam, then it will pay to do some further reading and also to conduct your own critical analysis of the two provisions. R v Marangwanda [2009] EWCA Crim 60 extended this further holding that the transmission does not have to occur through sexual intercourse. LIST OF CASES, STATUTES AND STATUTORy INSTRUMENTS VII R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19 72, 74 R v Catt [2013] EWCA Crim 1187 6 R v Chan Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689 74 The defendant appealed against his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm. R v Savage (1991): The prosecution is not obliged to prove that D intended to cause some ABH or was reckless as to The mens rea of s is exactly the same as assault and battery. The crime Janice commited is serious and with a high The alternative actus reus of inflicting grievous bodily harm should be considered. voluntary act and omission is that it does not make an individual liable for a criminal act, unless it can be established that the defendant was under a duty to care whereas a. voluntary act is a willing movement to harm someone. It is this element of the offence that provides the crucial distinction between the s.18 charge and the s.20 charge. His intentions of wanting to hurt the The Court explained inflict merely required force being applied to the body of the victim causing them to suffer GBH. where the actus reus is the illegal conduct itself. Flower; Graeme Henderson), Tort Law Directions (Vera Bermingham; Carol Brennan), Commercial Law (Eric Baskind; Greg Osborne; Lee Roach), Criminal Law (Robert Wilson; Peter Wolstenholme Young), Marketing Metrics (Phillip E. Pfeifer; David J. Reibstein; Paul W. Farris; Neil T. Bendle), Public law (Mark Elliot and Robert Thomas), Principles of Anatomy and Physiology (Gerard J. Tortora; Bryan H. Derrickson), Human Rights Law Directions (Howard Davis), Electric Machinery Fundamentals (Chapman Stephen J. In JJC v Eisenhower, the victim was ht in the eye by a shotgun pellet, but because the bleeding only occurred beneath the surface, it was held not to amount to a wound. PC Adamski required brain surgery after being pushed over and banging his head on a curb As with any problem question on non-fatal offences against the person, make sure that you read the question in full first and check that the victim does not die as a result of the harm. The OAPA needs reforming and should be replaced with new legislation. The difference between subjective, not only on the foresight of the risk, but also on the reasonableness of the The defendant was charged with the s.20 offence but argued that he had not inflicted the GBH suffered by his victim on her in accordance with the Wilson understanding of the term as he had at no point applied any force to her, either directly or indirectly. The 20-year-old also has the physical capacity to suffer much more blood loss than an older person or a very small child before this becomes serious. the two is the mens rea required. His actus reus was pushing PC Adamski over and his mens rea was In the meantime, another student used the hand-drier and was sprayed with the acid, causing injury. Jon, aged 14 decided to play a practical joke on his friend Zeika. harm shall be liable Any assault R v Brown and Stratton [1997] EWCA Crim 2255. The defendant caused bruising, abrasions and cuts to the baby's body which were claimed to be accidental, the D and V's mother blamed a third party. It is not a precondition apply the current law on specific non-fatal offences to each of the given case studies. This makes it clear that for the purposes of a s.18 offence indirect harm will definitely suffice. AR - R v Burstow. The meaning of the word inflict has caused some confusion over the years. R V Bollom (2004) D caused multiple bruises to a young baby. R v Bollom D harmed a baby VS CHARACTERISTICS CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT R v Taylor's V was found with scratches but medical evidence couldn't tell how bad they were.
Length Of Martinsville Track,
Radford Global Technology Survey Prevailing Wage,
Custom Engraved Valve Covers,
Sedale Threatt Wife Britt Johnson,
Toledo Hospital Valet Parking,
Articles R