Assaults Flashcards
A man who is standing in a queue waiting for a bus objects when another passenger pushes in front of him when the bus arrives. He begins shouting and swearing at the passenger, who becomes nervous and anxious. A police officer who is also on the bus goes to the passenger’s assistance. When the man shows no signs of calming down, the officer tries to arrest him. During the scuffle, the officer is bitten on her finger, an injury which draws blood and requires four stitches. In interview, the man states he bit the officer to make her let go so he could get off the bus. He denies intending to cause her really serious harm, but accepts that he knew she would suffer some harm by biting her in this way.
The prosecution have advised that they intend to charge the man with the most serious offence of assault in relation to the passenger and the police officer which can be justified on the evidence.
Which of the following best describes the man’s potential liability in relation to the passenger and the police officer?
A-The man is liable for battery to the passenger and causing actual bodily harm to the officer.
B-The man is liable for battery in relation to the passenger and intentionally causing a wound to the officer.
C-The man is liable for simple assault in relation to the passenger and wounding the officer intending to resist arrest and intending to cause her some harm.
D-The man is liable for simple assault in relation to the passenger and inflicting grievous bodily harm on the officer.
E-The man is not liable for an assault in relation to the passenger and liable for inflicting grievous bodily harm on the officer.
The best answer is option C. With regard to the incident with the passenger, the man did not apply any unlawful force and so cannot be charged with battery. For this reason, options A and B are both wrong. The relevant assault would be a simple assault as the man caused the passenger to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal physical force and intended or was reckless as to doing so. This is apparent from the evidence that the passenger was ‘nervous and anxious’.
The most serious offence with which the man could be charged for the assault on the police officer is a s 18 assault. The actus reus is to wound or cause grievous bodily harm. The man has caused a wound to the officer as he bites her finger drawing blood; this is apparent as the injury required four stitches. Although the man’s intention was not to cause grievous bodily harm, just to get off the bus, he is liable under the alternate mens rea. He has an intention to resist arrest and an intention (or recklessness) as to causing actual bodily harm.
Options A, D and E are wrong because the question required the most serious assault to be identified. Thus, although the man could be charged with either a s 20 or a s 47 assault, this does not meet that criteria. Furthermore, option E states (wrongly) that the man is not liable for an assault in relation to the passenger, whilst A suggests that he would be liable for battery.
A man gets into a heated argument with a nightclub security guard because he is refused entry into the venue. He punches the security guard once in the face wanting to hurt him and the security guard’s jaw is fractured in two places as a result.
In his police interview, the man accepts that he punched the security guard once because he was angry and lost his temper. He further admits that he wanted to hurt the security guard but then states, “I hit him hard, but I never intended to fracture his jaw – I was shocked, to be honest that I hurt him that badly”.
The police send the file for the Crown Prosecution for advice.
What is the most appropriate offence to charge the man with based on the evidence provided?
A-Simple assault under the common law and s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.
B-Battery under the common law and s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.
C-Assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
D-Inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
E-Causing grievous bodily harm with intent under s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Option D is the correct option. The man is guilty under s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 as he intended or was reckless as to some harm; it is not necessary to prove that he foresaw really serious harm, or the exact nature of the harm caused - R v Savage; R v Parmenter (1991). It is a question for the jury as to whether they think the injury amounts to serious harm.
Options A and B are wrong because of the extent of the injury (a broken bone).
Option C is not the best answer because of the extent of the injury. S.47 covers scratches, bruises, swelling and temporary loss of unconsciousness. Section 20 involves greater harm and a higher standard of mens rea.
Option E is wrong; there is no evidence that he intended grievous bodily harm - he wanted to hurt the security guard but not seriously.
A girl is misbehaving in the classroom. The teacher tells her off but when the girl continues to be disruptive, she tells the girl to go and report to the headteacher. The girl is annoyed and as she leaves the classroom, she suddenly turns and shoves the teacher hard in the chest. The teacher falls heavily against the whiteboard causing a large bruise on her arm.
What does the prosecution need to prove to convict the girl of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
A-The prosecution must prove that the girl inflicted unlawful personal force which caused actual bodily harm and she intended or was reckless as to the infliction of such force.
B-The prosecution must prove that the girl caused actual bodily harm and intended or was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm
C-The prosecution must prove that the girl inflicted unlawful personal force and intended or was reckless as to inflicting unlawful personal force.
D-The prosecution must prove that the girl caused the teacher to apprehend immediate unlawful personal force which caused actual bodily harm and she intended or was reckless as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal force.
E-The prosecution must prove that the girl inflicted unlawful personal force which caused actual bodily harm and she intended or was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm.
Option A is the correct answer. For the actus reus the prosecution must prove that the girl committed a simple assault or battery which caused “occasioned” actual bodily harm. As the girl pushes the teacher, the relevant assault is a battery which requires the infliction of unlawful personal force. Such force must cause actual bodily harm. Here the teacher suffers a large bruise. For the mens rea, the prosecution need only prove that the girl intended or was reckless as to the infliction of unlawful personal force. There is no need to prove she intended or was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm (R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1991]).
Options B and E are wrong because the prosecution does not need to prove that the girl intended or was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm.
Option D is wrong on these facts because it refers to a simple assault rather than a physical assault which is not relevant to these facts. Option C is incomplete because for the actus reus the prosecution must prove that the girl inflicted unlawful personal force which caused actual bodily harm.
The defendant is on trial for an offence of ‘Wounding with Intent’ for stabbing the victim with a knife outside a public house. He lost his temper after the victim knocked the defendant’s drink over. The defendant shouted at the victim and then pulled a knife from his pocket before stabbing the victim in the arm. The trial judge said to the jury before they retired to make their verdict:
“A person intends the consequences of his voluntary act in each of two quite separate cases: first when he desires those consequences and secondly when he foresees a risk that the consequence may occur but takes that risk anyway. You may find the defendant guilty either if he intended to wound the victim or if he was reckless as to this. Here, the evidence suggests the defendant’s act was reckless.”
The defendant was found guilty but appeals on the basis that the judge did not direct the jury accurately on the law.
In relation to the trial judge’s direction to the jury, which of the following statements is correct?
A-The judge described the law wrongly because wounding with intent requires a specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
B-The judge described the law wrongly because wounding with intent requires a specific intent either to wound or to cause grievous bodily harm.
C-The judge described the law wrongly because wounding with intent requires either an intent or recklessness as to causing grievous bodily harm.
D-The judge described the law accurately as wounding with intent requires either an intent or recklessness as to wounding the victim.
E-The judge described the law accurately but did not apply the law appropriately to the facts as the defendant’s act was intentional.
Option A is correct. The defendant has been charged with an offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the mens rea of which is an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. Only specific intent (here to cause GBH) will do for a s.18 offence and it cannot be committed recklessly.
Option B is wrong because a section 18 assault cannot be committed by an intention to wound.
Option C is wrong because the mens rea does not include recklessness.
Option D is wrong as the law has not been described accurately – because wounding with intent requires an intent to cause GBH.
Option E is wrong for the same reason although the second part of the sentence is correct.
The victim is in a night club one evening. He begins to flirt with a woman who is standing next to him at the bar when suddenly, a man marches up to him and starts shouting: “Leave my girlfriend alone, you bastard” intending the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. The victim just laughs at the man and responds: “You don’t scare me, you idiot. She can chat to who she wants!” (Incident 1).
The man then says: “If you don’t leave her alone, I’ll find you tomorrow and slash you!” (Incident 2).
The victim leans forward and kisses the woman. The man launches himself at the victim and pulls out a significant chunk of the victim’s hair (Incident 3).
The man then produces a knife and launches himself at the victim, screaming: “No-one will fancy you when I’ve finished – I’m going to cut you from ear to ear!” The victim manages to move backwards so the man only cuts the victim’s face slightly, resulting in a few drops of blood (Incident 4).
In an effort to get away, the man then pushes the victim backwards before running off. The victim hits his head on a table and suffers a fractured skull. The man states that it never crossed his mind that the victim would fall and hurt himself (Incident 5).
Which of the following statements correctly describes the man’s liability for assault?
A-The man is not guilty of assault in Incident 1.
B-The man is guilty of assault in Incident 2.
C-The man is not guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in Incident 3.
D-The man is guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm in Incident 4.
E-The man is guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm on the victim in Incident 5.
Option D is correct. The actus reus of s.18 OAPA 1861 is satisfied by either a wound (as here, evidenced by the blood) or grievous bodily harm; whilst the mens rea requires an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The facts state that the man intended to cut the victim from ear to ear so this would be sufficient.
Option A is wrong because the victim need only apprehend unlawful personal force; there is no requirement that the victim be afraid.
Option B is wrong. The man’s threat is conditional and refers to the next day; hence, it does not satisfy the requirement for immediacy.
Option C is wrong because assault under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 may be committed by the pulling out a substantial piece of the victim’s hair.
Option E is wrong because although the man inflicts grievous bodily harm on the victim (the fractured skull), the mens rea is not satisfied. The prosecution must prove that the man either intended or was reckless as to causing some bodily harm. However, the facts state that ‘it never crossed his mind that the victim would fall and hurt himself’.
A prosecutor has received a file from the police asking for advice as to whether the actus reus is satisfied for an offence of wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm. The incident occurred between two youths who were arguing over payment for a drugs deal. The dispute escalated into a fight and the defendant punched the victim causing several injuries and then stabbed him.
The prosecutor considers the medical report which confirms that the victim was stabbed in the abdomen and this injury required one stitch to stop the bleeding. He also suffered internal bleeding to his kidney due to being kicked, a minor scratch to his face which drew blood and a fractured cheek bone. In addition, the victim now has an anxiety disorder which means he is afraid to leave his house, as a result of the trauma of the assault.
Which of the following statements best describes whether the injuries would satisfy the actus reus of an offence of assault inflicting grievous bodily harm?
A-The injury to the abdomen satisfies the actus reus as it required one stitch to stop the bleeding.
B-The internal bleeding to the victim’s liver can only be charged as a lesser assault as there is no breaking of both layers of the skin.
C-The minor scratch to the face is not sufficiently serious to satisfy the actus reus of this offence.
D-The fractured cheek bone satisfies the actus reus of this offence but only if it leads to permanent disfigurement.
E-An anxiety disorder does not satisfy the actus reus as psychiatric conditions are not included within the definition.
The correct answer is option A. The actus reus of wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm under ss.18/20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 requires a breaking of both layers of the skin resulting in bleeding (Moriarty v Brookes (1834)) or really serious harm as in DPP v Smith [1961]. The stab wound would satisfy the definition as a stitch was needed to stop the bleeding.
Option B is wrong as the injury to the liver does not have to be charged as a lesser offence. Although internal bleeding is not a wound, it may count as grievous bodily harm and either will satisfy the actus reus.
Option C is wrong as any breaking of both layers of the skin will satisfy the definition of a wound. Thus, a minor scratch which draws blood will do.
Option D is wrong as a fractured cheek bone would count as grievous bodily harm and there is no need for the victim to suffer permanent disfigurement.
Option E is wrong as grievous bodily harm can include psychiatric injury if it is serious enough – R v Ireland/Burstow [1997].
A father finds out his teenage daughter is taking drugs and he confronts her at home. When she confirms his suspicions, the father says that if she continues to take drugs, he will kill her drug dealer (Incident 1).
A few days later, the father sees the dealer selling drugs to his daughter outside their house. The father shouts to the dealer that he has seven days to leave the area and, if he does not, the father threatens to seek out the dealer and stab him (Incident 2).
When the father sees the drug dealer hanging around his house ten days later, he runs out and punches him in the face (Incident 3).
What statement best describes the father’s criminal liability for the three incidents?
A-He is liable for simple assault only when he threatens to kill the dealer (Incident 1).
B-He is liable for simple assault only when he threatens to stab the dealer (Incident 2).
C-He is liable for simple assault when he threatens to kill the dealer (Incident 1); and battery when he punches him (Incident 3).
D-He is liable for simple assault when he threatens to kill the dealer and to stab him (Incidents 1 and 2); and battery when he punches the dealer (Incident 3).
E-He is liable for battery only when he punches the dealer (Incident 3).
The correct option is E. The father is not liable for simple assault when he tells his daughter that he will kill her drug dealer. This is because his daughter does not apprehend any violence against her as the threat was directed against the drug dealer; and neither does the dealer as he was not present when the words were spoken. Furthermore, the father is not liable for simple assault when he threatens to stab the dealer because this is a conditional threat, which is not immediate as the dealer has seven days to leave the area. Hence, the father is only liable for physical assault (battery) when he punches the dealer. He intentionally inflicts unlawful personal force on the dealer when he does so.
Options A and B are wrong for the reasons stated above, namely, that the father does not commit simple assault for the first two threats. Option C is wrong because he is not liable for simple assault when he threatens to kill the dealer. Option D is also wrong because the father does not commit simple assault when he threatens to stab the dealer.
The defendant has been told that a local youth has been harassing his daughter on her way home from school. He walks up to the youth when he sees him following his daughter and says: ‘If you don’t leave my daughter alone, I’ll smash your face in!’ The youth is frightened and runs off.
Has the defendant committed the offence of simple assault?
No, because the threat of force must be an immediate one and here it is conditional upon the youth failing to leave his daughter alone.
Option A is correct. The actus reus of simple assault requires the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force and both C and D demonstrate the requirement for the youth to apprehend such force. However, because the apprehension must be of immediate force, the threat does not satisfy the actus reus as it is a conditional one to smash the youth’s face in only ‘if’ he goes near the defendant’s daughter. This is why A is the correct answer.
Option B is wrong as words alone can satisfy the actus reus of simple assault. Option C refers to the youth being afraid, but this is not actually a requirement of the actus reus of assault, although it would be evidence that he apprehends the infliction of unlawful force. Option E is wrong because, although this may satisfy the mens rea of the offence, the actus reus is not complete.
A police officer is called to attend a fight at a nightclub. When he arrives, the officer sees the defendant arguing with another man. He walks up to the defendant, approaching him from behind, and tells him that he is under arrest for a public order offence. The defendant does not hear the officer’s words and so he does not turn around. When the officer puts his hand on the defendant’s shoulder, the defendant believes he is about to be attacked. He panics and hits out, causing a deep scratch to the officer’s face. The defendant accepts in his police interview that he realised there was a risk he may cause the officer some harm when hitting him.
Is the defendant guilty of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm to the officer with intent?
A-Yes, because he caused a wound to the officer and was reckless as to causing some bodily harm.
B-No, because the scratch was not sufficiently serious to satisfy the definition of grievous bodily harm.
C-Yes, because he caused grievous bodily harm to the officer and intended to cause grievous bodily harm.
D-No, because although he caused a wound to the officer, he did not intend to resist arrest or cause grievous bodily harm.
E- No, because although he caused grievous bodily harm to the officer, he did not intend to resist arrest.
Option D is correct as the defendant is not guilty of a s.18 assault under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Although the defendant caused a wound to the officer (a scratch involves the breaking of both layers of the skin – Moriarty v Brookes (1834)), he does not satisfy the mens rea. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm as he only hit the officer once and did not use, for example, a weapon. Furthermore, he did not intend to resist arrest. Because the police officer approached the defendant from behind, he did not hear the officer say that he was under arrest.
Option A is wrong. It is correct that the defendant caused a wound to the officer (as above) and was reckless as to causing some harm (he ‘realised there was a risk he may cause the officer some harm when hitting him’). However, this does not satisfy the mens rea for this type of assault under s.18 OAPA 1861 unless the defendant also intended to resist arrest.
Option B is wrong because it is irrelevant whether the scratch is serious enough to constitute grievous bodily harm – the actus reus of this offence is satisfied by either a wound or grievous bodily harm.
Option C is wrong because a ‘deep scratch’ is not grievous bodily harm. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm.
Option E is wrong because, although the defendant did not intend to resist arrest, a scratch would not satisfy the definition of grievous bodily harm (really serious harm).
