Actual bodily harm Flashcards
D may have committed
assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of The offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The ACTUS REUS is
an assault or battery causing actual bodily harm.
Here V’s injuries constitute ABH
defined in MILLER as ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim’ as he suffered…
momentary loss of consciousness
(T v DPP)
chest pain, cutting of hair
(SMITH)
psychiatric harm
with a recognised medical condition more than fear or distress (CHAN-FOOK, BURSTOW, IRELAND).
D committed BATTERY
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.
need not be hostile/without consent,
no injury, more than everyday contact , can be direct or indirect and even just clothing.
D committed ASSAULT
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
Factual causation is satisfied as
“but for test” D’s assault [or battery] v would not have been injured (PAGETT, WHITE).
for legal causation
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
PAGETT
act of a third party/ contribution of others
ROBERTS
victims own act
medical negligence
as a novus actus interviens/intervening act does not break the chain of causation (CHESHIRE) unless it is “palpably wrong” (JORDAN). Here…
the thin skull rule
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…
the mens rea is
intention or subjective recklessness as to an assault or a battery not as to the ABH itself, as in SAVAGE and in ROBERTS.
D has specific/direct intention as to an assault
as D decided to bring about the particular consequence of fear (MOHAN) when
D has specific/direct intention as to a battery
as d decided to bring about a particular consequence of unlawful force (MOHAN). when
D was subjectively reckless as to the assault
as D foresaw a risk of causing fear(apprehension) and carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when…
D was subjectively reckless as to the battery
as d foresaw a risk of the application of unlawful force and carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when..
the transferred malice principle applies
, 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.
to conclude
, D is likely to be liable as the AR and MR are satisfied.
