Causation, Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997

Question 1

what summary did the supreme court give about causation in the case of Dunne v DPP?

Answer 1

Causation has recently been summarised by the Supreme Court as follows: “the accused will legally have caused the death of the victim if his act, or acts, substantially contributed to the subsequent death, taking into account the time at which and the manner in
which the death occurred”.

Question 2

Describe Simple assault

Answer 2

Simple assault - a person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful exercise, intentionally or reckless
(A) directly or indirectly applies force to cause an impact on the body of another or
(B) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact without the consent of the other

Question 3

what was established in the case of R v Pagget?

Answer 3

It is not necessary, however, that the actus reus be the only cause of death, so long as the actions of the accused are at least a significant cause.

For example, using a pregnant girl as a human shield against shooting police was considered a significant enough contribution, even if it was the combination of that with the gunfire which caused her death

Question 4

define the egg shell skull rule and the case of R v Blaue

Answer 4

Those who use violence take the victim as you find them. Victim refused treatment due to religious beliefs.

Question 5

when can something be considered the cause of an event?

Answer 5

For something to be considered the cause of an event, such as a death, it must be sufficently proximate to that event to be operating at the time of the event- R v Chesire - Even though the victim died 2 months after the shots due to medical complications, def still responsible unless it was so extraordinary and unusual that it was the cause of death.

Question 6

define assault

Answer 6

S.2 a person shall be guilty of an offence who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly:
A. directly or indirectly applies force to or causes impact on the body of another;
b. Causes another to believe that he or she is likely to be subjected to any such force or impact. Without the consent of another.

Question 7

define the use of force

Answer 7

This can be the slightest touch. S.2(2) Force includes application of heat, light electric current, noise or any other form of energy and the application of matter in solid, liquid of gaseous forms

Question 8

Describe the facts of DPP v K and how it amounts to assault

Answer 8

A schoolboy poured acid into a hand-dryer. He had intended to return and remove it but before he had the chance, another boy came in and scarred his hands badly. The court held that what the child had done amounted to assault.

Question 9

describe the reasonableness of fear in an assault

Answer 9

the apprehension must be “on reasonable grounds”, therefore the egg-shell skull rule does not
apply in the sense that if someone is unusually nervous and fears they are about to be attacked, an assault has not been committed unless that fear is on reasonable grounds

Question 10

what was held in the case of R v Ireland

Answer 10

R v Ireland- Accepted that words can constitute an assault - A thing said is a thing done. 10 silent phone calls were held sufficient due to the level of fear they instilled in
the victim.

Question 11

explain how implied consent excuses liability in certain situations

Answer 11

A doctrine of
implied consent has thus arisen to excuse liability in such situations. This implied consent would extend to “all physical contact that is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of
daily life”. This applies irrespective of whether or not the contact is in fact unacceptable to the
other person-the standard is an objective one, of what is generally acceptable.

Question 12

when is an assault not committed

Answer 12

S. 2(3): “No such offence [i.e., assault] is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to
cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life
and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

Question 13

What is the punishment for assault

Answer 13

2(4): punishment: 6 months’ imprisonment and a £1,500 fine upon summary conviction.

Question 14

False Imprisonment

Answer 14

S.15(1)
Shall be guilty of false imprisonment where intentionally or recklessly
a. Takes or detains
b. Causes to be taken or detained
c. Otherwise restricts the personal of liberty of another person without consent.

Question 15

serious harm

Answer 15

S.1
Serious harm means injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement or
substantial loss or impairment of mobility of the body as a whole or of the functions of any bodily member or
organ.

Question 16

Endangerment

Answer 16

S.13
A person shall be guilty of an offence who intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct which creates a
substantial risk of death or serious harm to another.

Question 17

define Harm

Answer 17

S.1

Harm means harm to body or mind and includes pain and unconsciousness.

Question 18

Assault causing harm

Answer 18

S.3(1)

A person who assaults a person causing him harm is guilty of an offence. Thus s2 plus harm.

Question 19

Assault causing serious harm

Answer 19

S.4(1)
The offence is simply causing serious harm. Accused caused serious harm and intentionally or recklessly caused
harm. Thus no need to prove an assault.

Question 20

Threats to kill or cause serious harm

Answer 20

A person who without lawful excuse, makes 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 other person or a 3rd party will be guilty of an offence. No
immediacy requirement.

Question 21

what was held in the case of R v O’brien

Answer 21

It was held that the defendant
must have intended the recipient of the threat to believe that the threat would be executed – regardless of whether
the victim believed it or not.

Question 22

what is harassment

Answer 22

S.10(1)
Any person whop without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of telephone,
harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her shall
be guilty of an offence.

Question 23

s. 10(2) harrasment

Answer 23

a. It must be proved that the accused’s conduct caused either Serious interference with the other’s peace
and privacy; or Alarm or distress or harm to the other.
b. It must be proved that that a reasonable person would realise the conduct would seriously interfere with
someone’s peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to another.
Can’t be an unreasonable reaction.

Question 24

what was held in the case of DPP v (O’Dowd) v. Lynch?

Answer 24

The relevant conduct is persistent. The requirement is fulfilled by incidents which immediately succeed each other
and those that are separated by intervening lapses of time. It can also be an unambiguously continuous act
(following down the street). Here, there was a short period of time where they indecently exposed themselves a
few times and went up the door a number of times.

Question 25

Special categories of victims

Answer 25

(i) members of an Garda Siochanna or prison officers acting in the course of their duty
(ii) foreign head of state or members of foreign governments or foreign diplomats, where the murder is committed within
(iii) anyone murdered in furtherance of subversive objectives under the offences against the state act 1939

Question 26

what was held in the case of DPP v Murray?

Answer 26

In order to secure a conviction under s. 3 for the murder of a Garda, the prosecution must prove, not only an intention to kill or seriously injure, but also that the accused either know his victim was a Garda or was reckless as to whether or not he was a Garda.

Furthermore, it must prove that he either knew the Garda was acting

Question 27

Assault manslaughter

Answer 27

This is in circumstances where the Accused assaults victim intending to cause harm they can be convicted for manslaughter.

Question 28

R v Holzer ( Assault manslaughter)

Answer 28

The accused boxed the victim splitting his lip who fell backwards, hitting his head, and died.
The court held that since the harm intended [intention to bruise the victim on the lip] was relatively trivial, this would not suffice for manslaughter.

The intended injury must be a serious one

Question 29

what are the facts of the case DPP v Hendly

Answer 29

The accused had been trying to restrain his wife, attempting to hold her down by the neck and inadvertently kneeled her back. The pressure on her liver and ultimately caused her die. The appellant argued that the kneeling had been a complete accident and he did not even remember, as he had been so busy concentrating on trying to restrain her. The Court of criminal Appeal held that his actions needed to be unlawful and dangerous - and deliberately so

Question 30

What are the facts of R v Ademako ?

Answer 30

The accused was an anaesthetist, who failed to notice, that a tube has been disconnected during an operation, causing the patient to have a cardiac arrest and die.

The house of Lords advocated that jury take a three-step approach.

1. They should ask, firstly, had the accused been negligent
2. if so, they should continue to enquire whether this negligence had actually caused the death
3. And if it had, they should then consider whether the negligence was so great as to amount to gross negligence because only if the negligence was of a very high degree could a conviction for manslaughter be justified.