Acts and Sections with Cases

Question 1

What is the AR and MR for GBH s.20?

Answer 1

The intention or subjective recklessness to maliciously or unlawfully wound or inflict GBH.

Question 2

What is the AR and MR for ABH?

Answer 2

The intention or recklessness to apply unlawful physical force onto another person, starts of as a technical assault or battery.

Question 3

What did the case of JJC v Eisenhower establish?

Answer 3

To be guilty of GBH all the layers of the skin must be pierced. “A scratch is insufficient”

Question 4

What is the AR and MR for Assault?

Answer 4

The intention or recklessness to cause an act which makes V apprehend immediate unlawful physical force..

Question 5

What is the AR and MR for Battery?

Answer 5

The intention or recklessness to apply unlawful physical force onto another person.

Question 6

What is the AR and MR for GBH s.18?

Answer 6

The intention to maliciously and unlawfully wound or cause GBH. Whoever shall unlawfully prevent the apprehension or detainer of an individual.

Question 7

Outline the case of DPP v Smith

Answer 7

Cutting of the hair; established that acts interfering with health or comfort can amount to ABH.

Question 8

What section outlines Common Assault?

Answer 8

s.39 of the Criminal Justice 1988

Question 9

Which section outlines the offence of GBH?

Answer 9

s.20 & s.18 of the offences against the person act 1861

Question 10

What are the key differences between R v Ireland & R v Burstow?

Answer 10

In R v Ireland there was silent phone calls to multiple women over a time period. In R v Burstow, D sent Abusive Letters and Threats in addition to silent phone calls to one women.

Question 11

Which Cases state Psychiatric Injury can lead to an offence?

Answer 11

R v Ireland & R v Burstow are the leading cases that established it has to be considered when prosecuting. R v Chan Fook has stated that severe Psychiatric injury can amount to GBH. R v Constanza helped to reinforce this precedent.

Question 12

What are the key differences between s.20 and s.18?

Answer 12

in s.18 maliciously is used in the literal sense whereas in s.20 it is a part of the MR.
S.18 requires D to cause GBH whereas s.20 looks at D inflicting GBH.
s.20 looks at Recklessness as well as intention.

Question 13

What did the case of R v Cunningham establish?

Answer 13

It established the concept of subjective recklessness that must be considered when look at the offences.

Question 14

What are the problems of out dated statutes?

Answer 14

Language used in the statute is complicated and hard to understand. Doesn’t consider modern social values. The issues of today weren’t an issue back then. Old statutes don’t take into account Medical and technological advances.

Question 15

What did R v Ireland establish?

Answer 15

That words can amount to psychiatric injury which can lead to an offence, R v Chan Fook stated that severe psychiatric injury can lead to GBH.

Question 16

What are the key problems of Assault?

Answer 16

It is difficult to define assault. Battery and assault are often confused in the media, so society doesn’t know the difference. In certain situations assault can be consented to.

Question 17

What are the problems of s.47?

Answer 17

Maximum sentence of 5 years, the same as s.20.

Language used in the act is complicated. No Act to define Psychiatric injury (R v Miller, R v Constanza)

Question 18

What are the criticisms of GBH s.18?

Answer 18

Immoral ruling (JJC v Eisenhower)
Same AR as s.20 however maximum sentence is much more severe (R v Brown, R v Vickers, R v Gibbons and Proctor.)  S.18 is a specific intent crime

Question 19

What are the criticisms of s.20?

Answer 19

Same maximum sentence as ABH. - More severe injuries to V. Basic intent crime - looks at recklessness and intent.

Question 20

Why is using common law to develop the law a disadvantage?

Answer 20

It leads to Judge made law which directly goes against Parliamentary supremacy (Parliament should be the sole law making body). Overlaps the arms of state - which could lead to corruption.

Question 21

What did the cases of R v Clarence, R v Dica and R v Golding help to develop?

Answer 21

They ruled that harmful sexual activity cant be consented to - Illegal activities can’t be consented to. Also helped to develop the law by taking medical advances in STI and STD treatment into consideration/

Question 22

Why is the case of R v Dica important?

Answer 22

It overruled the ruling of R v Clarence, which was immoral and ruled that marital consent wasn’t a defense. it also set Precedent for future cases R v Golding.

Question 23

Why is the case of Fagan v MPC significant?

Answer 23

It helped distinguish between Assault and Battery.
Helped define indirect (DPP v K) and direct battery (R v Thomas).
It also differentiated between complete and continuing acts.