Actual bodily harm

Question 1

D may have committed

Answer 1

assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of The offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Question 2

The ACTUS REUS is

Answer 2

an assault or battery causing actual bodily harm.

Question 3

Here V’s injuries constitute ABH

Answer 3

defined in MILLER as ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim’ as he suffered…

Question 4

momentary loss of consciousness

Answer 4

(T v DPP)

Question 5

chest pain, cutting of hair

Answer 5

(SMITH)

Question 6

psychiatric harm

Answer 6

with a recognised medical condition more than fear or distress (CHAN-FOOK, BURSTOW, IRELAND).

Question 7

D committed BATTERY

Answer 7

under common law, and charged under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (ROLFE, THOMAS, COLLINS v WILLCOCK) by the application of unlawful force on V when he… which is more than everyday contact.

Question 8

need not be hostile/without consent,

Answer 8

no injury, more than everyday contact , can be direct or indirect and even just clothing.

Question 9

D committed ASSAULT

Answer 9

under common law, and charged under section 39 of the criminal justice act 1988 (NELSON, LOGDON, LAMB) by causing v the apprehension (fear) of the infliction of immediate unlawful force when he… causing fear

Question 10

Factual causation is satisfied as

Answer 10

“but for test” D’s assault [or battery] v would not have been injured (PAGETT, WHITE).

Question 11

for legal causation

Answer 11

D’s assault [or battery] was the operating and substantial cause of V’s injuries as it was a significant, more than minimal contribution (SMITH). V … is an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) but will not break the chain of causation as it was reasonably foreseeable

Question 12

PAGETT

Answer 12

act of a third party/ contribution of others

Question 13

ROBERTS

Answer 13

victims own act

Question 14

medical negligence

Answer 14

as a novus actus interviens/intervening act does not break the chain of causation (CHESHIRE) unless it is “palpably wrong” (JORDAN). Here…

Question 15

the thin skull rule

Answer 15

means to take your victim as you find them where the victim has a hidden weakness and so there will be legal causation (BLAUE). here…

Question 16

the mens rea is

Answer 16

intention or subjective recklessness as to an assault or a battery not as to the ABH itself, as in SAVAGE and in ROBERTS.

Question 17

D has specific/direct intention as to an assault

Answer 17

as D decided to bring about the particular consequence of fear (MOHAN) when

Question 18

D has specific/direct intention as to a battery

Answer 18

as d decided to bring about a particular consequence of unlawful force (MOHAN). when

Question 19

D was subjectively reckless as to the assault

Answer 19

as D foresaw a risk of causing fear(apprehension) and carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when…

Question 20

D was subjectively reckless as to the battery

Answer 20

as d foresaw a risk of the application of unlawful force and carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when..

Question 21

the transferred malice principle applies

Answer 21

, where a crime intended for one person falls on another by accident, as in LATIMER, so D will still be liable as the mens rea for the [assault or battery] is transferred from x to v.

Question 22

to conclude

Answer 22

, D is likely to be liable as the AR and MR are satisfied.