Assault and Battery

Question 1

Battery actus reus

Answer 1

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).

Question 2

Can commit battery not through immediate bodily contact between D and C

Answer 2

DPP v K

Hid acid in a blowdryer Sprayed in next users face. Convicted of battery

Question 3

Battery can be continuing

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

Battery

Can be where you cause contact between other people and things

Answer 4

R v Martin

Yelled fire in a theatre, causing tramplings

Question 5

Battery

Can be by omission - failure to warn of dangerous situation you have committed

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Battery

Lawful contact becomes unlawful if actively dissent

Answer 6

Collins v Wilcock

Question 7

Battery

Knowing you may be assaulted doesn’t mean you agree to it

Answer 7

H v CPS

Assaulted worker at mental institution

Question 8

Children can give consent to being touched (if they capacity to give consent) and accept medical treatment from doctors without parent’s permission

Answer 8

Gillick

Question 9

Battery

Deception may negate consent

Answer 9

R v Richardson

Pretending to be a registered dentist

Question 10

Battery Mens Rea

And case to show it

Answer 10

D must intend or be reckless as to the unlawful bodily contact
R v Venna

Question 11

Battery

Doctrine of transferred malice

Answer 11

Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire

Hit wife causing her to drop baby

Question 12

Battery

Recklessness is subjective foresight

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Battery

Can’t use voluntary intoxication to deny mens rea of basic intent offences

Answer 13

DPP v Majewski

Question 14

Battery

Majewski applies even where didn’t mean too get that drunk

Answer 14

R v Allen

Was only a social drinker and got so drunk by accident - didn’t matter

Question 15

Battery

If you wouldn’t have foreseen risk sober then it doesn’t matter that you were drunk

Answer 15

R v Brady

Question 16

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.

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Assault actus reus

Answer 17

Any act by which one person causes another to apprehend immediate and non- consensual bodily contact

Question 18

Assault

No actus reus if no apprehension of the impending immediate bodily harm

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Assault

Apprehension must be immediate

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Assault
Mens rea: intending or foreseeing that V may apprehend immediate and non-consensual bodily contact
And case

Answer 20

R v Lamb

Question 21

Assault

Defences

Answer 21

The same range as apply to battery (unsurprisingly, since the offence of assault is effectively causing someone to apprehend a battery).