Chapter 12: Non-fatal Offences - Technical assault Flashcards
What are non-fatal offences?
Where a crime against a person is possible without resulting in death (non-fatal)
Can be by frightening or causing actual injury
What are the 5 offences in this chapter?
- Grievous bodily harm (serious)
- Grievous bodily harm (normal)
- Actual bodily harm (‘mild’)
- Battery
- Assault
What are the respective statutes for each of the offences?
Grievous bodily harm (serious)
- Section 18 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
Grievous bodily harm (normal)
- Section 20 OAPA 1861
Actual bodily harm (‘mild’)
- Section 48 OAPA 1861
Battery
- Section 39 CJA 1988
Assault
- Section 39 CJA 1988
What is the overview/big picture for Technical Assault?
- Summary offence
- Basic intent crime
- Intoxication - bad defence
- Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
What is an important thing to note about citing Technical Assault?
Heading must cite both - case law (Assault) and statute (Section 39 CJA 1988)
- Statute does not contain the AR and MR (Fagan v MPC [1968]; R v Ireland [1977]; R v Burstow [1977]; R v Constanza [1977])
- Case law does not contain the sentencing provisions
“Section 38 Criminal Justice Act 1988 - Assault”
What is the sentencing/punishment for Assault?
- 6 months imprisonment
- Fine
- Both
What is the definition for Assault? Case?
Fagan v MPC [1968]
- The causing of apprehension of immediate personal violence
Other cases
- R v Ireland [1977]
- R v Burstow [1977]
- R v Constanza [1977]
What are the 5 elements of Assault?
AR
- Positive Act
- Apprehension
- Immediate
- Unlawful personal violence
MR
- Intentionally causing fear of an immediate application of force or recklessly doing so
What is a positive act? Can frightening someone constitute assault (case?)
Positive act
- Concious & voluntary movement of muscles
- Merely frightening a person is not sufficient. There has to be probability of application of force - Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police Station [1983]
What are 5 different scenarios to note about positive acts in assault?
don’t talk about these unless question raises/talks about it
- Words can be assault
- Words can negate assault
- Conditional assault
- Assault wihtout D having means to carry out threat
- Silent phone call
Can words constitute assault? What case clarifies this?
R v Ireland
- It is now accepted, although before Ireland didn’t
What case clarifies that words can negate assault?
Tuberville v Savage [1669]
Facts
- D placed his hand on his sword and said “if it was not assize time, I would not have taken such language from you,”
Held
- His words negated assault
- Whether words amount to assault or not, words can negate assault
Can conditional assault be an assault? What 2 cases that show this.
if victim does X, he threatens to do Y
If negation of assault is conditional on what the victim does, then there will still be assault (threat)
Balke v Barnard [1840]
- “I will blow your brains unless you…”
Read v Cocker
What case states that ‘assault without D having means to carry out the threat’ is still assault
Stephen v Myres
Facts
- D points an unloaded, imitation gun at V
- V is not knowing that it was fake
Held
- Still assault
What 4 cases show silent phone calls are assault?
- R v Ireland [1997]
- R v Johnson [1996]
- R v Burstow [1977]
- R v Constanza [1977]
R v Ireland [1997]
Facts
- D made numerous phone calls to 3 women and remained silent
- Women suffered psychological disorders requiring treatment
- D argued his voice did not apprehend “immediate and unlawful violence”
Held
- HOL held D was guilty of assault
- On grounds that the call caused the V to apprehend immediate and possible personal violence
What is ‘apprehension’? What there to note about it?
The victim must apprehend (anticipate) immediate personal violence
- Normally, apprehension will be explained in terms of being afraid, but that is not exactly correct (afraid doesn’t count)
- By apprehension, it means ‘anticipation of violence’
- Doesn’t necessarily mean that the person feared the violence
What is the case for apprehension?
Logdon v DPP
Facts
- D opened a drawer pointing the gun at the V
- Threatened the victim hostage
Held
- D convicted of assault
Takeaway
- As long as D anticipates violence
- The victim does not have to be “afraid” (even if he confident, it still is assault)
What is the definition of ‘immediate’?
What are the 2 definitions/interpretations for it?
Broad/wider interpretation
- Imminent - in the nearest future
Narrow interpretation
What are the 3 cases that show immediate (imminent) appehension
- Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police Station
- R v Ireland and Burstow [1998]
- R v Lewis
Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police Station
immediate - imminent apprehension
Facts
- D frightening a woman who was dressed in her night-clothes
Looking through her bedroom window
Caused her to anticipate fear
Held
- Held to be immediate, despite the fact the V could have escaped before even getting to her
Takeaway
- Courts gave a looser interpretation to ‘immediacy’
- Although the V could have taken preventative measures
R v Ireland and Burstow [1998]
immediate
Lord Steyn
- Used the term “imminent”
What is meant by ‘unlawful personal violence’?
The threat must be unlawful
Note
- A threat used in self-defence is not assault
What case carifies ‘either intentionally causing fear of an immediate application of force or recklessly doing so’
R v Venna [1976]
- If D intends or is reckless to alarm his V, the MR requirement is satisfied (even if he doesn’t intend to carry it out)
What is the distinction between intention and recklessness
Intention
- Direct intent - R v Woolin [1999]
- Oblique intent - R v Woolin [1999]
- Foreseeability of risk - virtual certainty
Recklessness
- Subjective test - R v Cunningham
- Objective test - R v G & Another [2003]
