1. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

Question 1

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON

Answer 1

Governed by both common law and Offences Against the Person Act 1861)

The Offences

• Assault (CL)
• Battery (CL)
• Assault Occ. ABH (s.47 OAPA)
• Wounding or inflicting GBH (s.20 OAPA)
• Wounding or causing GBH with intent (s.18 OAPA)
• Administering poison so as to endanger life (s.23 OAPA)
• Administering poison with intent (s.24 OAPA)

Question 2

ASSAULT

Answer 2

COMMON LAW

RULE OF THUMB: if there is an injury, it will NOT BE ASSAULT

Def: “An act which intentionally and directly causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force”. (Collins v Wilcock per Lord GOFF)

AR: An act causing a person to apprehend the infliction of immediate and unlawful personal violence

1. ACT
   - Words (R v Wilson) or silence may even suffice (R v Ireland)
   - Words may also negate an assault (Tuberville v Savage)
2. CAUSING APPREHENSION OF PERSONAL VIOLENCE
   - apprehension from V’s perspective. V must BELIEVE that D will carry out the threat (R v Lamb), though D is not required to actually carry out the threat (Logdon v DPP).
   - – physical force/contact need not be used (R v Burstow; Stephen v Myers)
   - – “apprehension” should have its commonplace meaning, fear not necessarily a part of this meaning.
   - Apprehension must be R and judged OBJ. If unusually sensitive, will not satisfy this unless a Rperson would have done so as well (R v Beasley)
3. UNLAWFUL
   - self-defence, necessity or the consent of V may make a threat of force lawful.
4. IMMEDIATE
   - ‘Immediate’ is widely defined and taken form V’s perspective (Smith v Superintendent of Woking).
   - it includes the immediate future (R v Constanza cf. Thomas v NUM)
5. VIOLENCE
   - only apprehension of physical damage will suffice i.e. not psychological (R v Ireland)

MR: Intentionally or recklessly causing V to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force (R v Venna)

1. INTENTION
   - Has its ordinary meaning i.e. direct aim, purpose or want (R v Moloney per Lord Bridge)
2. RECKLESSNESS
   - CUNNINGHAM reck. should be used (R v Savage; R v Parmenter)
   - – TEST: D must have been SUBJ awar of the risk of causing V the apprehension of the infliction of immediate and unlawful personal violence yet gone on to take it anyway.

Question 3

BATTERY

Answer 3

COMMON LAW

RULE OF THUMB: if there is an injury, it will NOT BE BATTERY

Def: the actual use of force on another person without their consent (Fagan v MPC)

AR: Unlawful application of force (R v Ireland/Burstow per Lord Steyn)

1. APPLICATION OF FORCE
   - merest touch will constitute force (Collins v Wilcock), contact with a person’s clothing is sufficient (R v Thomas)
   - no req. for application of force to be rude/hostile/aggressive (Faulkner v Talbot per Lord Lane)
   - app of force may be indirect (Haystead v DPP; DPP v K; R v Martin)
2. UNLAWFUL
   - Self-defence, necessity or consent may make it lawful
   - Ordinary everyday contact is deemed to be lawful (Collins v Wilcock)
3. OMISSIONS
   - omission can amount to battery where:
   - – the act is continuous (Fagan v MPC)
   - – D fails to avert someone from a Rforeseeable risk stemming from a situation D created (DPP v Santana-Bermudez)

MR: Intention or recklessness as to the application of force (R v Venna)

1. INTENTION TO APPLY FORCE
   - Intention has ordinary meaning (R v Moloney per Lord Bridge)
2. RECKLESSNESS AS TO THE APPLICATION OF FORCE
   - CUNNINGHAM reck. (R v Savage; R v Parmenter)
   - – TEST: D must have been SUBJ aware of the risk of causing V the unlawful application of force and taken the risk anyway.

Question 4

ASSAULT OCCASIONING ABH

Answer 4

s.47 OAPA

Def: an assault or battery causing ABH
Max S: 5 yrs

AR: assault occasioning ABH

1. ASSAULT
   - Requires an assault OR battery under common law to be established (DPP v Little; R v Ireland/Burstow)
2. OCCASIONING (CAUSATION)
   - D’s act must cause V ABH in LAW and in FACT
   - – a factual link must exist between D’s act and the ABH (R v White)
   - – D’s act need not be the sole or main cause of ABH (R v Pagett), but must be and operating and substantial cause (R v Smith) AND more than minimal or trifling (R v Cato).
3. ABH = any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim (R v Miller)
   - harm must be more than transient AND trifling (R v Miller) and more than wholly insignificant (R v Chan-Fook)
   - EXAMPLES
   - – T v DPP: temp. loss of consciousness/sensory function.
   - – R v Chan-Fook; R v Burstow: recognised psychiatric injury
   - – DPP v Smith: cutting off someone’s hair
   - – CPS Charging Standards: loss/breaking teeth, displaced broken nose, minor fractures, bruising, minor cuts.

MR: same as for assault or battery at common law, depending on which is relevant

• D need only intend or be reckless as to assault or battery
• MR not required as to causing harm (R v Savage/Parmenter) OR the level of force used (R v Roberts)

Question 5

WOUNDING OR INFLICTING GBH

Answer 5

s.20 OAPA

Def: unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH upon another person.

AR: Unlawfully wounding or inflicting GBH

1. WOUND
   - this requires that BOTH layers of skin are broken, internal bleeding alone will not suffice (C (a minor) v Eisenhower)
2. INFLICT (CAUSATION): D’s act must cause V ABH in law and fact
   - assault is not necessarily required (R v Wilson)
   - includes infecting another with a sexually transmitted disease (R v Dica) regardless of whether they consented to that risk or not (R v Konzani).
3. GBH: serious harm (R v Saunders) or REALLY serious harm (DPP v Smith)
   - the following may be considered when determining GBH (R v Bollom):
   - – age and health of V
   - – total harm caused by the totality of the injuries
   - can include recognised psychiatric injuries (R v Ireland/Burstow.
   - CPS Charging Standards: broken/displaced limbs, injuries with substantial loss of blood/requiring lengthy treatment or incapacity, severe internal injury, loss of sensory function, more than minor permanent disfigurement.
4. UNLAWFUL
   - Self-defence, necessity or V consent may make it lawful.

MR: Maliciously intending or being reckless as to causing SOME harm. This is the distinguishing feature between s.20 and s.18, the SOME harm, not GBH.

1. MALICIOUSLY
   - D must only foresee that SOME harm may result from their actions. No req. that D foresee the actual harm or the extent their actions might cause (R v Mowatt; R v Savage/Parmenter)
2. INTENTION OR RECKLESSNESS
   - “intention” has ordinary meaning (R v Moloney per Lord Bridge)
   - Recklessness = CUNNINGHAM reck.
   - – TEST: D must have been SUBJ aware of the risk and then taken it anyway.
3. AS TO CAUSING SOME HARM
   - D need only intend to foresee causing SOME harm, not serious harm.
   NB: This is what distinguishes s.20 from s.18, only some harm, NOT GBH.

Question 6

WOUNDING OR CAUSING GBH WITH INTENT

Answer 6

s.18 OAPA

Def: wounding or causing GBH with intent.

AR: wounding or causing GBH

1. WOUND
   - same as for s.20
2. CAUSE (CAUSATION)
   - same meaning as “inflict” for s.20
   - D act must cause V ABH in LAW and FACT.
3. GBH
   - same as for s.20

MR: Intention to cause GBH

1. INTENTION
   - has its ordinary meaning (R v Moloney per Lord Bridge)
   - Unlike s.20, recklessness will NOT suffice for s.18 MR.
2. TO CAUSE GBH
   - D must actually intend to cause SERIOUS harm. If they merely intended to cause some harm, will NOT SATISFY MR for s.18.

Question 7

ADMINISTERING POISON SO AS TO ENDANGER LIFE

Answer 7

s.23 OAPA

Def: unlawfully and maliciously administering or causing to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such a person or inflict GBH.

AR: Unlawfully administer/cause to be administered/cause to be taken, a poison or destructive or noxious thing

1. ADMINISTER
   - basic meaning: to give or apply
   - D must DIRECTLY administer to V, this includes spraying fluid or vapour from a device (R v Gillard)
   - no req. for substance to enter V body.
2. CAUSE TO BE ADMINISTERED
   - covers D having substance administered to V by an INNOCENT 3rd party.
   - D’s act must cause the V’s ABH in LAW and in FACT (causation)
3. CAUSE TO BE TAKEN
   - covers where D indirectly causes V to take the substance.
   - D’s act must cause the V’s ABH in LAW and FACT (causation)
4. POISON, DESTRUCTIVE OR NOXIOUS THING
   - “noxious” has a BROAD interpretation
   - – if “inherently dangerous” or liable to injure in common use, is noxious (R v Cato cf. R v Marcus)
   - determined on a case by case basis by a jury having regard to circumstances of case, particularly to nature/quantity of substance administered.
5. SO AS TO ENDANGER LIFE
   - the danger of life must be caused by the administration of the substance
   - D’s act must cause V’s ABH in LAW and FACT (causation)
6. UNLAWFUL
   - self-defence, necessity or V consent may make administration lawful.

MR: Maliciously (intention or recklessness) as to endangering life/inflicting GBH

1. MALICIOUSLY (just means intention or recklessness)
   - D must have intentionally/recklessly administered the substance
   - CUNNINGHAM reck (R v Savage/Parmenter)
   - – TEST: D must have been SUBJ aware of the risk of inflicting GBH via administration but taken it anyway.
2. AS TO CAUSING GBH
   - no need to prove that D reckless as to endangering life, ONLY that they were reckless as to causing GBH.

Question 8

ADMINISTERING POISON WITH INTENT

Answer 8

s.24 OAPA

Def: Unlawfully and maliciously administering or causing to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or destructive or noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy such a person.

AR: Unlawfully administer/cause to be administered/ cause to be taken, a poison/destructive/noxious thing

1. ADMINISTER
2. CAUSE TO BE ADMINISTERED
3. CAUSE TO BE TAKEN BY
4. UNLAWFUL
   - all the same as for s.23
5. POISON, DESTRUCTIVE OR NOXIOUS THING
   - to be noxious, a substance must be “hurtful, unwholesome or objectionable” (R v Marcus per Tudor Evans J), does not need to be able to cause injury in itself.
   - KEY DIFF from s.23, where to be “noxious” something must be inherently dangerous, for s.24, it need only be hurtful,…

MR: Maliciously as to the administration and with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy

1. MALICIOUSLY
   - D must have intentionally/recklessly administered the substance
   - – intention has ordinary meaning (R v Moloney)
   - – CUNNINGHAM reck. (R v Savage/Parmenter)
   - – TEST: D must have been SUBJ aware of the risk of administration of a noxious substance but taken it anyway.
2. INTENTION TO INJURE, AGGRIEVE OR ANNOY
   - D may injure, aggrieve or annoy either (R v Hill):
   - – directly, via effects of the substance.
   - – through a subsequent action exploiting the substance’s effect. eg. sleeping pills
   - —– There must be intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy the person, administering a substance to someone in order to search their belongings was not sufficient (R v Weatherall)

Question 9

DEFENCES

Answer 9

All GENERAL DEFENCES are available for non-fatal offences

- Self-Defence, Duress, Intoxication and Consent