Final answer:
In DPP v Smith, it was ruled that intention is not necessary for a conviction under section 20 GBH; rather, it is sufficient that the defendant could have foreseen harm as a result of their actions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The ruling in DPP v Smith addressed the mental state required for a conviction under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, concerning grievous bodily harm (GBH). The question presents four options, and the correct statement regarding the case of DPP v Smith (1961) is: a) Intention is not necessary for conviction.
This case established that for a person to be convicted of section 20 GBH, it is not necessary to show that they intended to cause serious harm. Instead, it suffices that the harm caused was objectively foreseeable as a result of the defendant's actions.
In other words, a person could be guilty if they foresaw some harm and went ahead with their actions. This introduces the concept of 'objective recklessness'.