What is the ratio in JCC v Eisenhower?

Wounding requires a break in the continuity of both the epidermis and dermis; internal bleeding or injury without breaking both skin layers does not constitute wounding.

What did the court decide in JCC v Eisenhower?

The court held that internal bleeding from a pellet gun injury, without breaking the skin surface, did not constitute wounding under s.20.

Why is JCC v Eisenhower important for assault law?

It established the precise technical definition of wounding, crucial for determining liability under s.20 and distinguishing between different categories of physical harm.

What is the ratio in JCC v Eisenhower?

Wounding requires a break in the continuity of both the epidermis and dermis; internal bleeding or injury without breaking both skin layers does not constitute wounding.

What did the court decide in JCC v Eisenhower?

The court held that internal bleeding from a pellet gun injury, without breaking the skin surface, did not constitute wounding under s.20.

Why is JCC v Eisenhower important for assault law?

It established the precise technical definition of wounding, crucial for determining liability under s.20 and distinguishing between different categories of physical harm.

Criminal1 min read

JCC v Eisenhower

[1984] QB 331Queen's Bench Division1984

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“Wounding requires breaking of both skin layers, not merely internal bleeding or bruising.”

Facts

Eisenhower was hit near the eye by a pellet from an air gun. This caused a rupturing of blood vessels and bleeding under the surface, but did not break the skin. He was charged with unlawful wounding.

Issues

Whether internal bleeding without a break in the skin constitutes 'wounding' under s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Held

The Divisional Court held that there was no wound as both layers of skin remained intact. Internal bleeding alone, without breaking the skin surface, does not constitute wounding.

Significance

This case provides the definitive legal definition of wounding, essential for distinguishing between different types of harm under assault law. It's crucial for students understanding the technical requirements of s.20 offences.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of JCC v Eisenhower. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

JCC v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331

Criminal LawWoundingSection 20Definition of HarmAssault

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.