Assaults Flashcards
in order of severity, list different types of assault
simple/physical, actual bodily harm, maliciously wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm, wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent
what is the difference between simple and physical assault?
simple- accused need not make any physical contact, but usually occur together e.g. D may raise their fist as threat before actually hitting them
what is the definition of simple assault?
any act that intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1969)
how can we determine that the accused has satisfied the actus reus for simple assault?
requires victim to apprehend unlawful force or violence- the victim must apprehend that the unlawful personal force may occur immediately
what is a conditional threat?
e.g. if you don’t shut up i will slap you- could be liable for assault
what is physical assault?
infliction of unlawful force- any unlawful touching with appropriate mens rea will count
can there by a physical assault without a simple assault?
yes- e.g. approaching victim from behind as victim does nto apprehend the force as they did not hear the defendant
what is the mens rea for physical assault?
intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful force on another person- no need to show intent or recklessness as to causing any injury
can psychiatric harm be a type of actual bodily harm?
yes- R v Ireland- must be a recognisable clinical condition e.g. anxiety neurosis or reactive depression
what does actual bodily harm mean?
R v Miller 1954- any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim- doesn’t have to be serious or permanent but must be more than transient or trifling
what is the actus reus of s 47 of the OAPA 1861? (assault occasioning actual bodily harm)
1) an assault, 2) which occasions 3) actual bodily harm
what is the actus reus of s 20 of OAPA 1861? (Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm)
unlawfully wound or inflict grievous bodily harm
what is the definition of a wound?
both layers of skin to be broken i.e. bleeding- Moriarty v Brookes 1834
can psychiatric harm count as grievous bodily harm?
yes- R v Burstow 1997- but only if they are severe enough
what are the ways of committing an s 18 offence OAPA 1861? (Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent)
unlawfully and maliciously causing GBH with intent to cause GBH/unlawfully and maliciously wounding with intent to cause GBH/unlawfully and maliciously causing GBH with intent to resit or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person/ unlawfully and maliciously wounding with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person
what is the mens rea for s 18?
requires an intent either to cause GBH or resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person
what is the general rule about consent?
consent is not available to any assault where harm is intended or caused even if the consent is valid e.g. D cannot use consent as a defence when the harm was intended such as a charge under s 47 of the OAPA
what are the exceptions to the general rule of consent?
surgical operations, dangerous exhibitions e.g. circus, properly conducted sport e.g. rugby, boxing, case of R v Brown (consent is a defence to other lawful activities e.g. ritual circumcision/ tattooing, ‘rough and ill disciplined behaviour’ e.g. youngsters messing around and someone gets hurt
what are two examples of things that are NOT exceptions to the general rule of consent?
sado-masochism and mody modification R v Brown- homosexual men engaged in genital torture for sexual pleasure, even though they consented they were convicted of offences under ss 47 and 20 of the OAPA
what are the details of R v Wilson?
D used hot knife to brand his initials on buttocks with wife’s consent, convicted under s 47 of OAPA but appeal granted by CoA who claim the decision to convict was justified
what are the details of R v Emmett
consent not a defence for a D charged with committing a s 47 offence against female partner- issue of consent immaterial where there was a realistic risk of harm
what are the details of R v BM?
D was tattooist/piercer charged with s 18 offence after removing part of ear, a nipple and split his tongue to resemble a lizard with client’s consent- court held that a person cannot consent to such serious irreversible injuries and rejected Ds argument that the procedures were analogous to tattoos
when is consent not valid?
if it is obtained by fraud as t the identity of the D or the nature and quality of the act
