Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The following sentence appeared in a report in The Guardian:

All eight will appear in court on Monday charged with grievous bodily harm and damaging property.

Should not causing be added before grievous as under?

All eight will appear in court on Monday charged with causing grievous bodily harm and damaging property.

share|improve this question
add comment

3 Answers

Ordinarily, yes.

But in criminal law, the term "grievous bodily harm" is understood as a type of offense. It is also sometimes abbreviated as GBH.

That's why I'd say, in the example above, the journalist didn't find it necessary to add such a clarification.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks. Nice explanation. Perhaps the confusion is arising out of this parallelism? 'charged with grievous bodily harm and damaging property'. Damaging harm can stand on its own even if it were not the name of an offense like GBH. –  Essen Jun 12 '12 at 4:33
add comment

There is no 'causing' because grievous bodily harm is the name of the crime they are charging him with. It is not a reference to the injuries the victim received.

If you cause a fire, you are charged with arson. If you cause somebodies death, you are charged with manslaughter or murder depending on whether it was deliberate or not. If you cause injuries, you are charged with actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm depending on how bad the injuries are.

share|improve this answer
    
But you may also be accused of committing grievous bodily harm, and the actual charge is 'that you did on Tuesday last cause grievous bodily harm to....' –  TimLymington Jun 11 '12 at 11:50
    
Indeed, but accused is not charged. They are accused of doing something, and then charged with the crime. I think it gets confusing because the charge usually describes the accusation. If you are speeding and get caught, you are accused of speeding and then charged with speeding. –  Roaring Fish Jun 11 '12 at 12:16
add comment

Think of charged with as accused of. So, you would say "he was accused of murder", "he was accused of causing harm", etc. But you can equally say, "he was accused of harm".

So, he was charged with harm is as correct as he was charged with causing harm.

share|improve this answer
1  
You can't be charged with harm. You can be charged only with a crime, and there is no crime called 'harm'. –  Roaring Fish Jun 11 '12 at 11:34
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.