Assault and Battery Flashcards
Battery actus reus
Any act by which one person makes (or causes) unlawful non-consensual bodily contact with another (includes contact through objects, and includes touching a person’s clothes while he or she wears them).
Can commit battery not through immediate bodily contact between D and C
DPP v K
Hid acid in a blowdryer Sprayed in next users face. Convicted of battery
Battery can be continuing
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Accidentally drove onto police officer’s foot (no mens rea). Then refused to move it, so was then committing battery.
Battery
Can be where you cause contact between other people and things
R v Martin
Yelled fire in a theatre, causing tramplings
Battery
Can be by omission - failure to warn of dangerous situation you have committed
DPP v Santana-Bermudez
Searched by police, says no needles in his pockets. There were and she gits stabbed searching.
By lying he causes it therefore Actus reus. Novus Actus? PW knew he was a drug addict surely she should have expected something. If he said nothing difficult to prove causation, did nothing to prompt her to search him. Deliberately left his duty to prevent others from harm by a dangerous situation he has created. Should have warned police officer.
Battery
Lawful contact becomes unlawful if actively dissent
Collins v Wilcock
Battery
Knowing you may be assaulted doesn’t mean you agree to it
H v CPS
Assaulted worker at mental institution
Children can give consent to being touched (if they capacity to give consent) and accept medical treatment from doctors without parent’s permission
Gillick
Battery
Deception may negate consent
R v Richardson
Pretending to be a registered dentist
Battery Mens Rea
And case to show it
D must intend or be reckless as to the unlawful bodily contact
R v Venna
Battery
Doctrine of transferred malice
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire
Hit wife causing her to drop baby
Battery
Recklessness is subjective foresight
R v Spratt
Shooting air rifle from his flat aimed at rubbish tip. Hit 8 year old girl. Argued he wasn’t reckless - didn’t foresee possibility of hitting her.
Court held test is subjective and conviction was quashed
Battery
Can’t use voluntary intoxication to deny mens rea of basic intent offences
DPP v Majewski
Battery
Majewski applies even where didn’t mean too get that drunk
R v Allen
Was only a social drinker and got so drunk by accident - didn’t matter
Battery
If you wouldn’t have foreseen risk sober then it doesn’t matter that you were drunk
R v Brady
Battery
If D voluntarily consumed substances that he did not know were intoxicants and only did the act bc of that consumption the Majewski does not apply and there is no recklessness.
R v Bailey
Hit guy with metal pole. Said he hit him bc of insulin overdose. If jury found that he had only attacked him bc of overdose (IF), then they must decide whether he knew that there was a risk of that effect in OD’ing on insulin
Was convicted, jury unconvinced
R v Hardie
Set fire to a building on Valium. Wasn’t his Valium it was his wife’s. Conviction quashed as they couldn’t be sure he knew it would have any effect
Assault actus reus
Any act by which one person causes another to apprehend immediate and non- consensual bodily contact
Assault
No actus reus if no apprehension of the impending immediate bodily harm
R v Lamb
Lamb and friend playing with a gun. Thought they had the safety on. Accidentally shoots his friend - manslaughter.
No mens rea, didnt intend and wasn’t reckless if he really didn’t foresee the possibility. Assaulted, when he shot - no apprehension, both thought it was safe
Assault
Apprehension must be immediate
R v Ireland
Made phone calls to women at night and breathing heavily into phone. Caused nervous breakdowns to some of them. Charged with assault OABH. Could only be guilty of assaulting them. Did they apprehend them possibility of immediate harm? May have been afraid but not necessarily of immediate harm
Assault
Mens rea: intending or foreseeing that V may apprehend immediate and non-consensual bodily contact
And case
R v Lamb
Assault
Defences
The same range as apply to battery (unsurprisingly, since the offence of assault is effectively causing someone to apprehend a battery).