1B - Non Fatal Offences Against The Person - Case List Flashcards
Assault - R v Nelson
CoA stated that ‘what is required for common assault is for [D] to have done something of a physical kind’. It has to be a physical act, an omission isn’t enough
Assault - Constanza
Letters can amount to an assault
Assault - Ireland
Silent phone calls can be an assault
Assault - R v Lamb
D pointed an unloaded gun at someone who thought its unloaded cannot be assault as they didn’t fear an immediate force. However, the gun was loaded and the victim was shot but it wasn’t assault as they didn’t fear any immediate force
‘apprehend’ means that the V mist fear unlawful force for there to be an assault
Assault - Smith v CS of Woking Police Station
V fearing what the D could do even though he was locked out amounted to an assault
IMMEDIATE ≠ INSTANTANEOUS
Assault - Light
The V feared that force was going to be used on her and the words in the circumstances were not enough to negate that fear
Assault - Tuberville v Savage
D places one hand on his sword and said ‘if it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you’. This was held not to be an assault, because what he said showed he was not going to do anything
Assault - Mohan
Direct intention - D’s main aim or purpose was to cause another to fear immediate unlawful force
Assault - Woolin
Indirect intention - it was not the D’s main aim or purpose but it is virtually certain from the D’s act that another would fear immediate force and the D would have realised this
Assault - Cunningham
Recklessness - the D knew that was a risk of causing another to fear immediate unlawful force because of their actions but continued to take the risk
Battery - Collins v Wilcock
Any touching may be a battery and always is if there was a physical restraint
Battery - Wood (Fraser) v DPP
Held that there was a technical battery thus meaning W was entitled to struggle and wasn’t guilty of any offence against the police
Battery - R v Thomas
The D touched the bottom of a woman’s skirt and rubbed it. CoA said, orbiter, ‘there could be no dispute that if you touch a persons clothing while he is wearing them that is equivalent to touching him’
Battery - Fagan v MPC
The actus reus of assault can be an ongoing at so that the complete offence is committed when D forms the mens rea
Battery - DPP v Santa-Bermudez
An omission is sufficient for the actus reus of assault
Battery - DPP v K
An indirect act can satisfy the actus reus of assault
Battery - Haystead
You don’t need to directly touch the V and transferred malice is enough
ABH - What does Miller say?
‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim’
ABH - What does Chan Fook say?
That it cannot be trivial or insignificant harm. It also says psychiatric injury is also classed as ABH but ‘mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic’ arent ABH, nor is ‘states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition’
ABH - What does T v DPP say?
Loss of consciousness even momentarily was held to be ABH
ABH - What does Smith (Michael) say?
ABH can include cutting somebody’s hair
ABH - What does Savage show?
It’s not necessary to demonstrate the D had the mens rea in relation to the level of harm inflicted. It’s sufficient that they intended or could foresee that some harm will result.
GBH - R v Burstow
Inflict has the same meaning as cause and that serious psychiatric harm can be enough for GBH
GBH - JCC v Eisenhower
V hit in eye with a shotgun pellet so it was bleeding under the surface so it wasn’t a wound
