Case 1 Flashcards
R v Nelson 2013
Designed what is meant by common assault, what is required for common assault is for [D] to have done something of a physical (kind which causes something else to apprehend that they are about to be struck)
R v Constanza 1997
The court held that written 800 or verbal words are sufficient for assault.
R v Ireland 1997
It was held that even a silent telephone calls can be classed as assault. It depends on the facts of the case.
R v lamb 1967
It was decided in R v lamb 1967 that pointing an unloaded gun at someone who knows it’s unloaded cannot be considered assault, this is because the other person does not fear immediate force . However if the other person thought it was loaded then it could be considered assault.
Smith v chief superintendent of working police station 1983
Fear of what they might do next was sufficiently immediate for the the purpose of the offence.
Collins v Wilcock 1984
Given as the police officer was not intending on doing his duty (e.g holding her but not arresting her) the court deemed that she had the right to fight back, thus she was free to go (after appeal)
Wood (Fraser) v DPP 2008
It was held that as the officer had not arrested w, there was technical assault (battery) by the police officer this meant that W was entitled to struggle and was not guilty of any offence of assault against the police.
R v Thomas 1985
Even touching the victim’s clothes can be sufficient to a form a battery in R v Thomas 1985 the defendant touched the bottom of a woman’s skirt and rubbed it, the court of appeal said, orbiter, (The obiter dicta is things stated in the course of a judgment which are not necessary for the decision.) there could be no despite that if you’re touching a person’s clothes while they are wearing it then it’s equivalent to touching the person themselves.
Fagan v metropolitan police commissioner 1968
D parked his car on the officers foot unknowingly despite being told D didn’t remove his car, the point is if you’re doing something unknowingly you’re fine if but if you’ve been told and don’t do anything it then becomes your fault.
DPP v K 1990
Although you yourself don’t you don’t touch someone you have caused force to be applied, any indirect act (kid toilet paper acid hand dryer)
Haystead v Chief constable of Derbyshire 2000
D caused the dropping of a small child to fall on the ground by punching a woman holding the child, D was found guilty because of his reckless abandon to weather his actions would of injure the child, its to note that D could of also been accused upon the transfer of malice.
DPP V Santa-Bermudez 2003
Criminal liability can arise by way of omission but only if the defendant is under the duty to act. Such as parent, by contact or by the relationship or from the assumption that care is implied.
Needles, police woman ask, no, lie, hurt
R v Miller 1983
Another scenario where D can be liable is where they create a situation in which they can cause or by omission can cause force to someone else
R v Chan Fook 1994
Psychiatric injury can also cause as actual bodily harm however many emotions such as fear and stress and panic nor does it include states of mind that are not themselves
R V Barstow 1997
Bodily harm must be interpreted as to include recognisable psychiatric illnesses
