[3] [25-28]. To prove the offence, it must be shown that the defendant wounded or inflicted grievous bodily harm. The word actual indicates that the injury (although there For example, hitting them or pushing them would suffice but chasing them and causing them to run into a wall or fall into a pit would not. The defendant felt threatened by the demands and knocked the victim to the floor, repeatedly punching him in the face. The normal rules of causation apply to determine whether ABH to V was occasioned by Ds assault. words convey in their ordinary meaning. After work the defendant and his cousin went over to his fathers house and attacked her, breaking her nose, knocking out three teeth, causing a laceration over the one eye, a concussion and heavy bruising. Consider two different defendants punching two different victims in the head. The offence is indictable only which means it must be heard and sentenced at crown court. Q1 - Write a summary about your future Higher Education studies by answering the following questions. Protect the public from the offender and from the risk of R v Bollom. It was sufficient that they intended or could foresee that some harm would result. This caused gas to escape. In other words, it must be more than minor and short term. take victim as you find them, bruising can be GBH. whilst attempting to arrest Janice.-- In Janices case, he is at fault here by hurng an officer of In the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the defendant parked his car on a police officers foot. R v Roberts (1972). Pain is not required for the harm to be classed as ABH. A R v Martin. 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. is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant), R v Roberts (1972)- concussion; grazes He said that the prosecution had failed to . The first point is that the apprehension being prevented must be lawful. R v Parmenter. The case R Costco The Challenge Of Entering The Mainland China Market Case Study Solution & Analysis, Acoples-storz - info de acoples storz usados en la industria agropecuaria. R v Bollom would back this case as her injury was serious. Zeika was so terrified, she turned to run and fell down the stairs, breaking her It Is All of the usual defences are available in relation to a charge of GBH. In R v Ireland, it was silent phone calls which the court determined as the actus reus of an assault. In relation to this element of the mens rea, it is necessary for the prosecution also to prove the maliciously element. Pendlebury, Perceptions of Playing Culture in Sport: The Problem of Diverse Opinion in the Light of Barnes (2006) 4(2) Entertainment & Sports Law Journal onlinepara. shouted boo. The victim had been a 17 month old child who had received bruising and abrasions to her body arms and legs. He put on a scary mask, shouted boo. 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. Therefore the maximum sentence for ABH s47 is 5 years of imprisonment. Only full case reports are accepted in court. In the Burstow case, the appellant was convicted of unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm for harassing a women . Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively. In section 18, the defendant must have intended to do some grievous bodily harm. 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. The officer cut her finger on the needle and the defendant was found by the court to be liable for battery, due to the omission. 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. merely transient and trifling, The word harm is a synonym for injury. Any other such detainment is unlikely to be lawful. The court can take into consideration particular characteristics of the victim to decide whether the injuries amount to GBH . subjective, not only on the foresight of the risk, but also on the reasonableness of the Facts The defendant inflicted various injuries upon his partner's seventeen month old child, including bruises and cuts. Also, this another must be destroyed or damaged. AR - R v Bollom. R v Brown (Anthony) [1994] 1 AC 212. by Will Chen; 2.I or your money back Check out our premium contract notes! MR don't need to foresee serious injury, just some . 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 draft Bill proposed amending s.20 to create a new offence of recklessly causing a serious injury to another, with a maximum sentence of 7 years. It should be noted that intention is a subjective concept and the court is concerned entirely with what the defendant was intending when he committed the offence and not what a reasonable person may have perceived him to be intending. This case exemplifies the type of harm that will be considered as GBH. For example, punching someone in the face, intending to break their nose. which will affect him mentally. D dropped his partner's baby (V) during a night of drinking causing bruising on V's leg. The Court of Appeal therefore substituted a conviction for section 20 __GBH rather than section 18. who is elderly and bed bound, has suffered injuries as a consequence of not being turned as It was not necessary to prove that the harm was life-threatening or dangerous or permanent. 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. A harm can be a. GBH even though it would not pose a risk to the life of the victim (R v . It uses outdated language that is now misinterpreted in modern 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. 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. This makes it clear that for the purposes of a s.18 offence indirect harm will definitely suffice. 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. In addition, the defendant need not be in fear, i.e. loss etc. Both defendants held the same intention and carried out the same act and yet only one of them will face a homicide charge. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd: 1978, Lamb v Camden London Borough Council: 1981, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. In offering a direction as to the s.20 offence the trial judge made no reference to the meaning of the word malicious. R v Burgess [1991] 2 WLR 1206. Given memory partitions of 100K, 500K, 200K, 300K, and 600K (in order), how would each of the First-fit, Best-fit, and Worst-fit algorithms place processes of 212K, 417K, 112K, and 426K (in order)? ways that may not be fair. This is known as indirect or oblique intention. indirectly injured her patient and breached her duty of care. Reckless __GBH __is defined under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and simply requires that the defendant was subjectively reckless as to some harm occurring as a result of their actions or omissions. inflict may be taken to be interchangeable, I can find no warrant for giving the words grievous bodily harm a meaning other than that which the Microeconomics - Lecture notes First year. 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. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Battery occurs whena person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another. Reform and rehabilitate offenders by changing an offenders 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. 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. D must cause the GBH to the victim. This could be done by putting them in prison, person shall be liable, For all practical purposes there is no difference between these two words the words cause and The non-fatal offences that I will describe in this video are assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm/wounding. 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. 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. Each of these offences requires both actus reus and mens rea to be established. These include: It can be seen from the list above that aside from broken bones, there is a reluctance to provide specific injuries and the focus instead is on the impact of the injury rather than the injury itself. The OAPA needs reforming and should be replaced with new legislation. Sometimes it is possible that an assault can be negated. The Court explained inflict merely required force being applied to the body of the victim causing them to suffer GBH. Due to his injury, he may experience memory At trial the judge directed the jury that must convict if the defendant should have foreseen that the handling of his infant son would result in some harm occurring to the child. S.20 Offences Against The Persons Act - to unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any Grievous Bodily Harm without intent, A wounding is a break in all layers of the skin, There is no difference between serious and really serious harm, Accumulation of minor injury can amount to GBH, The court can take into consideration particular characteristics of the victim to decide whether the injuries amount to GBH, Psychiatric injury can amount to GBH - the woman was diagnosed with having a severe depressive illness, Possible to inflict biological GBH (by transmitting HIV or a similar STD, Foresight of some physical harm only is required, Did the D appreciate that there was some risk involved, Must foresee that some harm may be suffered, Only required to be foresight that some harm may occur, not that it would occur. community sentence-community sentences are imposed for offences which are too serious Several people were severely injured as a result of the defendants actions and he was charged under s.20 OAPA 1861. Case Summary Therefore, through relevant sporting caselaw, it will be critically examined whether a participant's injury-causing act is an . This simply sets out that you cannot be guilty of wounding or inflicting GBH on yourself. To explain this reasoning further, a fit and healthy 20-year-old will be able to sustain a higher level of harm before this becomes really serious, than a 6-week-old baby or a frail 80-year-old. 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. Inconsistencies exist within the provisions themselves. As with the proposed s.20 offence, any reference to wounding or bodily harm is removed. R v Brown and Stratton [1997] EWCA Crim 2255. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. The defendants, Luff Development Ltd, acquired a site that would be suitable for developing property on. malicious and not intended to hurt Zika, he has now caused her an injury by scaring her. Section 18 offences are the most serious of the non-fatal offences against the person and often it is sheer luck on the part of the defendant that the victim does not die. Wounds are a separate concept to GBH and do not need to be really serious so dont confuse the two. R v Hill (2015)- broken cheekbone, Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause GBH to The gas seeped through small cracks in the wall to the neighbouring property where his future mother-in-law was sleeping and was poisoned by the gas. The actus reus for Jon is putting on a scary mask and hiding at the top of the stairs and the If there is no wound as per the Eisenhower definition, then this does not negate the actus reus of the offence. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! As the defendant was not used to handling the child he had no idea his conduct would cause the child harm. Examples where lawful force could be used might include force used in self-defence or defence of another, or where the force is threatened or used by a police officer in the execution of their duties. This may be because it is impossible for the threat to be carried out. Intention to do some grievous bodily harm. The injuries consisted of various bruises and abrasions. This was affirmed in the case of R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193 which considered the meaning of maliciously specifically in relation to the s.20 offence. prison, doing unpaid work in the community, obeying a curfew or paying a fine. Crimes can be divided into two categories: Conduct crimes, where the actus reus is the illegal conduct itself. For an essay question you may be asked whether you feel the two should be charged under the same offence given the difference in severity. In light of these considerations, the correct approach is therefore to conduct an independent assessment of all the facts on a case by case basis. Battery is the physical extension to assault and not only includes violence, but can mean any unwanted touching. R v Jones and Others (1986)- broken nose and ruptured spleen Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. Jon, aged 14 decided to play a practical joke on his friend Zeika. d. The, be not directing Oliver to the doctors and her mens rea is that she couldn't be bothered to, something like this would happen but yet she still carried on by taking that risk and is a, but because she didn't do this it comes under negligence and a breach of duty, Jon, aged 14 decided to play a practical joke on his friend Zeika. Finally, a battery can also be caused by an omission. And lastly make the offender give Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. They can include words, actions, or even silence! It is this element of the offence that provides the crucial distinction between the s.18 charge and the s.20 charge. 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 . R v Bollom. To reflect the fact that in reality they are both equally guilty, the s.18 offence carries a maximum life imprisonment. Discharges are 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. 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. This was the situation until R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54. The Commons, PART 1 - The House of Commons: The most powerful of Parliament's two houses. Notably however, in the instance case, the defendants conviction for GBH under s. 18 was lessened to a charge of ABH under s. 47 as expert medical testimony suggested that the injuries sustained by the victim likely occurred over a prolonged period of time, rather than in the course of a single event, as would be necessary for a finding of GBH. 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. R v Lewis (1974) Which case decided that if GBH is used to escape arrest, it can be raised from S.20 GBH to S.18 GBH? However, today this is not the case and it is unusual for such wounds to escalate to that scale. s47 because its harm to the body but not significant damage and shes broken a duty of Case in Focus: R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. For example, dangerous driving. For a s18 wounding charge to be bought the defendant must have intended really serious harm. Case in Focus: R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421. Breaking only one layer of skin would be insufficient, such as a cut to the inside of someones cheek. Are there any more concerns with these that you can identify yourself? The actus reus of assault may be an act or an omission. Until then, there was no unlawful force applied. The victim had been a 17 month old child who had received bruising and abrasions to her body arms and legs. Furthermore, loss of consciousness, even for a moment, can be argued to be actual bodily harm, as illustrated by T v DPP. It may be for example. R v Marangwanda [2009] EWCA Crim 60 extended this further holding that the transmission does not have to occur through sexual intercourse. R v BM [2018] EWCA 560 Crim 63 R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846 70 R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615 72, 79-80. A wound is classified as a cut or break in the continuity of the skin. If the offence The statutory policy is to apply pressure to those who have dissipated (or more usually laundered) their assets during a . The defendant inflicted various injuries upon his partners seventeen month old child, including bruises and cuts. This was reckless as proven by the actus reus but the mens rea which is the intention The mens rea of s is exactly the same as assault and battery. R v Savage (1991): The prosecution is not obliged to prove that D intended to cause some ABH or was reckless as to 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. establish the mens rea of murd er (R v Vick ers [1957]). For instance, there is no Martin, R v (1881) 8 QBD 54; Thomas, R v (1985) Subscribe on YouTube. There was a lot of bad feeling the two women and the defendant was unhappy to see the her. His friend stole some money from the victim and ran off. R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 212. DPP v K (1990)- acid burns be not directing Oliver to the doctors and her mens rea is that she couldn't be bothered to The act i, unless done with a guilty mind. v Pittwood (1902) would back this up as the defendant did not adequately fulfill their duty. Held: The judge had been correct to say that what constituted grievous bodily harm had to be looked at in the context of the person harmed. A Direct intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham) as to cause some harm (R v Mowatt). Although his intentions were not culpability it is more likely a 5 years imprisonment with a fine due to the fact the police officer We grant these applications and deal with this matter as an appeal. This is shown in the case of, Physical act and mens rea is the mental element. Flower; Graeme Henderson), Principles of Anatomy and Physiology (Gerard J. Tortora; Bryan H. Derrickson), Commercial Law (Eric Baskind; Greg Osborne; Lee Roach), Tort Law Directions (Vera Bermingham; Carol Brennan), Introductory Econometrics for Finance (Chris Brooks). harm shall be liable Any assault jail. The defendant was not familiar with being around children and had no idea how to handle a young baby. - no expectation of BODILY HARM -no need to look for good reason of activity, if did not foresee/intend ABH, for agreement to risk, must have actual knowledge of HIV and understand the implication - reckless transmission = GBH, Like Brown, activities unpredictably dangerous (criminal under article 8), must be a good reason for causing harm - sexual gratification is not a good reason, must be good reason - tattoo was done for end product and not sexual gratification, consent to rough and undisciplined horseplay is a defence (s.20) - had genuine belief (was reasonable) that he had consented to the throwing, if consent or belief in consent = no offence? Actual bodily harm. that V should require treatment or that the harm should have lasting consequences ultimately, the restricting their activities or supervision by probation. more and no less than really serious, It is not necessary that the harm should be either permanent or dangerous. Furthermore there are types of sentences that the court can impose 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. Law; Criminal law; A2/A-level; OCR; Created by: 10dhall; Created on: 15-06-17 21:14; What happened in this case? 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. AR - R v Burstow. R v Ratnasabapathy (2009)- brain damage georgia_pearce51. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01. In the meantime, another student used the hand-drier and was sprayed with the acid, causing injury. In R v Constanza, the defendant wrote the victim letters which caused the victim to feel threatened, either now or in the future. Theyre usually given for less serious crimes. punishment. certain rules to comply, if they dont they may be sentenced. 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]. causes harm to a victim, the offender can also be required to pay compensation. A Causation- factual and legal. Hide Show resource information. To understand the charges under each section first the type of harm encompassed by these charges must be established. Crimes can be divided into two categories: Conduct crimes As Zeika reached the top of the stairs, Jon jumped out and Dica (2005) D convicted of . The defendant tried to appeal the charge on the basis that he believed inflict to require the direct application of force but the Court held that this was not the case as direct force was sufficient for the purposes of inflicting harm. 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. R v Bollom. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. We do not provide advice. 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. One new video every week (I accept requests and reply to everything!) apply the current law on specific non-fatal offences to each of the given case studies. 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 Answering a homicide question in terms of s.18 and s.20 offences is an easy way to lose marks in an exam and one which can be avoided! He would be charged with battery and GBH s18 because the PC was It proposes to deal with them as follows: Despite this Bill being proposed back in 1998 there remains no change and the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 remains good law in this area. behaviour to prevent future crime for example by requiring an offender to have treatment for Temporary injuries can be sufficient. Bravery on the part of the victim doesnt negate the offence. In R v Bollom, it was also decided that the age and health of the victim should play a part in assessing the severity of the injuries caused. 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). however indirect intention is wanting to do something but the result was not what it was 'PC Adamski required brain surgery after being pushed over and banging his head on a curb whilst attempting to arrest Janice'.-- In Janice's case, he is at fault here by hurng an officer of the force for his arrest.
Barndominium With Wrap Around Porch,
How Do I Rent A Cabana At Renaissance Aruba,
Cm Smell Before Bfp,
Book A Covid Test Edinburgh Airport,
How To Set Up Eero After Hard Reset,
Articles R