Assault (NFOAP)

Question 1

What provision governs assault?

Answer 1

S.2 Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997
This provides for two types of assault.
1) intentionally or recklessly applying force to another person’s body.
2) intentionally or recklessly causing another person to believe on reasonable grounds that he is likely to be subjected to immediate personal violence.
It must also be proven the assault was unlawful, and the alleged victim did not consent to the conduct in question.

Question 2

What can constitute assault?

Answer 2

DPP v K provides for the indirect application of force constituting assault.
s. 2(2) NFOAP 1997 Act defines force as including the application of heat, light, electric current, or matter in any form.
R v Ireland provides that the mere use of words can cause a person to believe they are likely to be subjected to immediate personal violence.

Question 3

How is mens rea for assault proven?

Answer 3

DPP v Murray Direct intention was described as having a fixed purpose to (apply force),the test for recklessness is whether the accused consciously diregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their conduct would (result in the application of force to the victim or the reasonable belief of the victim that they were about to be subjected to personal violence).

Question 4

What provision governs assault causing harm?

Answer 4

S.3 NFOAP Act 1997 provides it shall be an offence to assault another causing him or her harm.
DPP v Brown clarified the misdirection in Dolny and held that the definition of assault under s.3 is the same as that under s.2, and as such consent will be a defence to assault causing harm.

Question 5

What is harm?

Answer 5

S.1 NFOAP Act 1997 defines harm as mental or physical harm, inlcuding pain or unconsciousness.

Question 6

What is the offence of causing serious harm?

Answer 6

s.4 NFOAP Act 1997 provides for the offence of intentionally or recklessly causing serious harm to another person. Assault is not an element of this offence and therefore consent is not an defence to it.

Question 7

What is serious harm in the context of s.4?

Answer 7

S.1 NFOAP Act 1997 defines serious harm as an injury which created a substantial risk of death, caused serious disfigurment, or the impairment of the body, or the loss of function of a body part or organ.
DPP v Kirwan provided that an injury can constitute serious harm even if it is not permanent or does not have protracted or long term consequences. As regards serious disfigurment the outcome of any medical treatment must be taken into account.

Question 8

What is the offence of endangerment?

Answer 8

s.13 NFOAP Act 1997 provides that intentionally or recklessly engaging in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another is an offence.
s.1 NFOAP Act 1997 definition of serious harm is an injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or results in serious disfigurment or impairment/ loss of function of the body or a body part or organ.
DPP v Cagney doubt about the constitutionality of s.13 on account of its vagueness and the right to a fair trial under art. 38.1.

Question 9

What differentiates endangerment from normal assault?

Answer 9

The People v Brown [2018] endangerment requires an action that creates a very significant risk of substantial harm and therefore is not suitable for deployment in normal assault cases.

Question 10

What is the offence of threathening to kill or cause serious harm

Answer 10

s.5 NFOAP Act 1997 it is an offence to make to another a threat, by any means, intending the other to believe it will be carried out, to kill or cause serious harm to that or a third person.
DPP v Dundon the intent of the perpetrator not the reaction of the victim is determinative for the requirement of belief it will be carried out.

Question 11

What is the offence of false imprisonment?

Answer 11

s.15 NFOAP Act 1997 it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly, unlawfully, detain another person by force or fraud against his will.
There is no minimum time requirment, not need it be a total restiction of liberty.

Question 12

What can amount to restriction of liberty

Answer 12

Kane v Governor of Mountjoy Prison persistently following someone can amount to a restriciton of liberty if they refrain from going places because of the perpetrator’s conduct.

Question 13

What is coercion?

Answer 13

Section 9 of the 1997 Act provides for the offence of preventing a person from doing something they are entitled to do, or forcing them to do something they are legally entitled not to do, through threats, damaging property, persistent following, besetting their home or work or routes to such, or following in a disorderly mannery thorugh any public place.
The coercision does not require proof it was successful.

Question 14

What is harrasment?

Answer 14

s.10 NFOAP 1997 Act provides that any person who without lawfula uthority or reaosnable excuse, by any means, including by use of telephone, harrases another person by perisistently following, watching, pesteringm besetting or commmunicating with him or her shall be guilty of an offence.

Question 15

What is the relevant conduct for harrassment?

Answer 15

DPP v O’Dowd provides perisistence is the relevant conduct for harassment. This requirement is fulfilled by mulitple instances separated by intervening lapses of time, or incidents which immediately succeed eachother.
A continuous act can still be perisistent if there is a core element of continuity.

Question 16

What is coercive control?

Answer 16

Section 39 Domestic Violence Act 2018 covers coercive control. It criminalises psychological abuse, and controlling and abusive behaviour that causes the victim to fear violence or causes serious alarm or distress and has adverse impacts on their day to day life.
Section 39(c) provides for when a reasonable person would recognise the acts of the victim to cause such harm on another.

Question 17

What has ammounted to coercive control?

Answer 17

DPP v Dunleavy first successful case of coercive control in Ireland. The defendant made at least 6000 phone calls to the victim. He physically and verbally abused herthrough the course of their relationship. At one point he came to the pub where she was, pulled her out by her shirt and gave her a severe beating.
DPP v Moody A member of An Garda Siochana was found guilty of coercive control, after he abused his terminally ill girlfriend. The defendant was found to have make 30,000 phone calls to her.
s.40 DVA 2018 Being in a relationship has been considered an aggravating factor the court will consider.

Question 18

What type of syringe attacks are there?

Answer 18

s.6(1-3) NFOAP Act 1997 governs assault with uncontaminated syringes intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to believe he may be infected.
s.6(5) NFOAP Act 1997 governs assault with a contaminated syringe, defined by s.1 as a syringe which has in it or on it contaminated blood or fluids.
s.7 NFOAP Act 1997 possession of a syringe with the intention to commit an offence is an offence in of itself.