assaults Flashcards
order of offences
assaults battery actual bodily harm S.47 wounding & inflicting GBH S.20 wounding & causing GBH with intent S.18
assault AR & MR
AR - an act which causes V to apprehend immediate personal violence (IPV)
MR - intent/ SR to cause the IPV
R v St George
D pulled gun out on V, before he could shoot a 3rd party intervened
guilty - apprehension of IPV
Stephen v Myers
D went to hit V, 3rd party intervened
guilty - apprehension of IPV - irrelevant if 3rd party intervened
Lamb
playing with a revolver - D shot and killed V
not guilty - no IPV from the victim
Logdon
workmate showed V a gun
guilty - V had IPV, irrelevant the gun was a replica
Smith
watched V through the window in the garden
guilty - IPV, test to convict (as he was outside). The fear was immediate to V.
Constanza
D wrote 800 letters and made several phone calls
guilty - S.47 ABH - IPV
test made for today - fear was immediate to V not excluding the near future
Tuberville v Savage
threatened with sword - judges were in town so he wouldn’t attack
not guilty - not IPV as words negated
Battery AR & MR
AR - application of force indirect or direct
MR - intent or SR for the unlawful force
Collins v Wilcock
PC grabbed V, who he thought was a prostitute
guilty - PC used unlawful force
Thomas
caretaker touched a girls skirt
guilty - unlawful force, COA - touching the girls clothes is the same as touching the girl
DPP v K
sulphuric acid in hand dryer
guilty - indirect unlawful force
Martin
D blocked theatre exits shouting fire
guilty - indirect unlawful force led to S.20 conviction
Haystead
D attacked woman holding a baby, baby fell on the floor
guilty - direct unlawful force on the mum - indirect unlawful force on the baby
Bermudez
police search, pricked with needle
guilty - S.47 ABH due to the failure to inform the PC
Venna
D lashed out fracturing the PCs hand
guilty of S.47 - COA confirmed MR for battery , ‘D must intend or be reckless as to applying force to another person’
ABH S.47 - AR & MR
AR - assault/battery + ABH injuries
MR - intent / SR for assault/battery
Donavon
the injury must be more than transient (comes and goes) or trifling (extremely minor)
Miller
the injury interferes with the health or comfort of the victim
T v DPP
D kicked V who lost consciousness
guilty - S.47 transient but more than trifling
DPP v Smith
couple had an argument, cut pony tail off - no permission
guilty - ABH as it was a sufficent amount so classed as bodily harm
Chan Fook
accused of stealing jewellery - V felt embarrassed
COA - not guilty, emotion isn’t psychiatric
Obiter - future cases psychiatric injuries could amount to ABH
Ireland
made a large number of phone calls to 3 women causing them to develop psychiatric illnesses
guilty - S.47 first case that included psychiatric disorders in ABH
Roberts
car lift to a girl, attempted assault causing her to jump out of the car
guilty - S.47 D didn’t need to intend or forsee injuries
GBH - AR & MR
AR - GBH ‘really serious harm’, wounding ‘any breakage of both layers of the skin’
MR - S.20 intent/SR some harm - S.18 intent only for GBH/resist arrest
Bollom
step dad assaulted a baby (bruises on body and legs)
guilty - S.18 GBH with intent - COA held that the age of the victim is relevant when deciding if the injuries are sufficent
Brown and Stratton
beaten father who had gone under gender reassignment - multiple injuries
guilty of S.18 GBH - COA held that a combo of injuries could amount to GBH
Burstow
D harassed V for 8 months (condoms on grass) - caused her to have severe depression
guilty of S.20 GBH first psychological GBH case - cause and inflict are the same
Dica
aware he was HIV positive, slept with 2 woman
guilty of S.20 GBH COA overruled Clarence that consenting to sex was not an automatic acceptance of infections
Eisenhower
shot in the eye with a shotgun pellet
charged wrongly with wounding but there was no skin broken should of been GBH
Grimshaw
d pushed glass glass into the victims face
TJ objective test, should d have forseen harm
COA should of been subjective did D forsee the risk of some harm
Parmenter
dad threw his baby into the air and then caught him
not guilty of GBH as he didn’t forsee injury
HOL guilty of S.47 D didn’t need to forsee GBH or wounding but must forsee any harm
DPP v A
playing with air pistols shooting below the knee - V shot in the eye
guilty - D foresaw some harm it was irrelevant it was different harm
Morrison
D threw PC through a window - PC was badly injured
guilty of S.18 - he had intent to resist whilst been reckless to PCs injuries
