1B Non fatal offences against the person (complete) Flashcards
AR of assault
An act which makes the victim fear the immediate and unlawful use of force against them.
Cases for the AR of assault
Constanza, Ireland, Tuberville v Savage, Smith v Woking Police Station
Ratio of Constanza
Words alone can amount to assault
Ratio of Ireland
Silence can amount to assault
Ratio of Tuberville v Savage
Words can negate an assault
Ratio of Smith v Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station
Even with the window closed, the victim apprehended physical attacks in the imminent future which was enough
MR of assault
Intention or subjective recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend the immediate and unlawful use of force.
Cases for the MR of assault
Logdon, Mohan, Woollin, Cunningham
Ratio of Mohan
Direct intent- a decision to bring about, if it lies within the accused’s power, no matter whether the accused desired the consequence or not.
Ratio of Woollin
Oblique intent- the court will infer intent if the consequence is a virtually certain result and the defendant knows this.
Ratio of Cunningham
Recklessness (an unjustified risk)- the defendant foresaw the risk and proceeded anyway.
Ratio of Logdon
V feared the immediate use of physical force and the D had, at least, been reckless in this occuring, it didn’t matter that the gun wasn’t real as the V believed it was.
AR of battery
The application of unlawful force on V.
Cases for the AR of battery
Faulkner v Talbot, Collins v Willcock, Thomas, DPP v Khan, Fagan
Ratio of Faulkner v Talbot
Any unlawful physical contact can amount to battery, a mere touch is sufficient.
Ratio of Collins v Willcock
‘Everyday allowances have to be made for the exigencies of everyday life’ (Goff LJ)
Ratio of Thomas
The slightest touch constitutes a battery, even if no application of ‘force’ occured.
Ratio of DPP v Khan
Indirect application of force can constitute a battery.
Ratio of Fagan
Battery cannot be committed through an omission.
MR of battery
Intention or subjective recklessness as to applying unlawful force.
Cases for the MR of battery
Mohan, Woollin, Cunningham
AR of s.47 OAPA 1861
Causing the victim to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force or violence OR the application of unlawful force occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH).
Cases for s.47/ABH
Miller, Chan-Fook, T v DPP, Smith, R v D
Ratio of Miller
ABH is “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim”.
Ratio of Chan-Fook
‘Actual’ is defined as “not to be so trivial as to be insignificant”.
Ratio of T v DPP
Momentary loss of consciousness= ABH (if longer then it is s.20).
Ratio of Smith
Harm doesn’t necessarily mean pain, cutting off a ponytail can equal ABH.
Ratio of R v D
ABH includes psychiatric harm. Further shown by Contanza and Ireland.
MR of s.47/ABH
Intention or subjective recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful physical force or the application of unlawful physical force.
Cases for the MR of s.47/ABH
Roberts, Savage
Ratio of Roberts
The defendant doesn’t have to foresee the harm, the D had the MR to cause battery, and the subsequent injuries were a result of his act. There doesn’t need to be a separate MR for ABH.
Ratio of Savage
D doesn’t have to foresee the actual harm. The MR for battery is sufficient.
AR for s.20 OAPA 1861
To unlawfully wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm (GBH).
Cases for the AR of s.20/GBH
Martin, Burstow, Saunders, Brown and Stratton, Bollom, Dica, Eisenhower
How can GBH/a wound be inflicted?
Direct or indirect (Martin) application of force and no force (Burstow).
Ratio of Martin
Although D didn’t have a specific target, by shouting fire and blocking the door, he indirectly applied force.
Ratio of Burstow
GBH can be inflicted via no force, for example, psychiatric harm.
Ratio of Saunders
GBH means “serious harm”
Ratio of Brown and Stratton
A collection of injuries in combination can amount to GBH.
Ratio of Bollom
The characteristics of the victim should be considered.
Ratio of Dica
Biological harm can amount to GBH.
What constitutes wounding?
A breaking of both layers of the skin (Eisenhower).
Ratio of Eisenhower
The injury wasn’t sufficient to constitute a wounding because both layers f the skin hadn’t been broken.
MR of s.20/GBH
“Maliciously”= intention or recklessness as to causing some harm.
Cases for the MR of s.20/GBH
Mowatt, Mohan, Woollin, Cunningham
Ratio of Mowatt
It is enough to have foreseen some physical harm.
AR of s.18 OAPA 1861
To cause unlawful wounding or cause GBH.
MR of s.18 OAPA 1861
Specific intention to cause GBH or specific intention t resist arrest.
Cases for the MR of s.18
Belfon, Taylor, Morrison
Ratio of Belfon
Although he had foreseen the risk, it couldn’t be proved that he had the specific intent so it was dropped to a s.20.
Ratio of Taylor
An intention to wound was not sufficient for the MR of s.18.
Ratio of Morrison
Where defendants resist arrest, the MR requirement is lower, they only need to prove he was reckless as to whether his actions would cause a wound or injury.
Maximum sentences
Assault and battery= 6 months
S.47 and s.20= 5 years
S.18= life
