Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law > Chapter 12: Non-fatal Offences - Technical assault > Flashcards

Chapter 12: Non-fatal Offences - Technical assault Flashcards

1
Q

What are non-fatal offences?

A

Where a crime against a person is possible without resulting in death (non-fatal)

Can be by frightening or causing actual injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the 5 offences in this chapter?

A
  1. Grievous bodily harm (serious)
  2. Grievous bodily harm (normal)
  3. Actual bodily harm (‘mild’)
  4. Battery
  5. Assault
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are the respective statutes for each of the offences?

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the overview/big picture for Technical Assault?

A
  1. Summary offence
  2. Basic intent crime
  3. Intoxication - bad defence
  4. Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is an important thing to note about citing Technical Assault?

A

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”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the sentencing/punishment for Assault?

A
  • 6 months imprisonment
  • Fine
  • Both
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the definition for Assault? Case?

A

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]
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the 5 elements of Assault?

A

AR

  1. Positive Act
  2. Apprehension
  3. Immediate
  4. Unlawful personal violence

MR

  1. Intentionally causing fear of an immediate application of force or recklessly doing so
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is a positive act? Can frightening someone constitute assault (case?)

A

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]
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are 5 different scenarios to note about positive acts in assault?

don’t talk about these unless question raises/talks about it

A
  1. Words can be assault
  2. Words can negate assault
  3. Conditional assault
  4. Assault wihtout D having means to carry out threat
  5. Silent phone call
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Can words constitute assault? What case clarifies this?

A

R v Ireland

  • It is now accepted, although before Ireland didn’t
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What case clarifies that words can negate assault?

A

Tuberville v Savage [1669]

Facts

  1. 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

  1. His words negated assault
  2. Whether words amount to assault or not, words can negate assault
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Can conditional assault be an assault? What 2 cases that show this.

if victim does X, he threatens to do Y

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What case states that ‘assault without D having means to carry out the threat’ is still assault

A

Stephen v Myres

Facts

  1. D points an unloaded, imitation gun at V
  2. V is not knowing that it was fake

Held

  1. Still assault
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What 4 cases show silent phone calls are assault?

A
  • R v Ireland [1997]
  • R v Johnson [1996]
  • R v Burstow [1977]
  • R v Constanza [1977]
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Ireland [1997]

A

Facts

  1. D made numerous phone calls to 3 women and remained silent
  2. Women suffered psychological disorders requiring treatment
  3. D argued his voice did not apprehend “immediate and unlawful violence”

Held

  1. HOL held D was guilty of assault
  2. On grounds that the call caused the V to apprehend immediate and possible personal violence
17
Q

What is ‘apprehension’? What there to note about it?

A

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
18
Q

What is the case for apprehension?

A

Logdon v DPP

Facts

  1. D opened a drawer pointing the gun at the V
  2. Threatened the victim hostage

Held

  1. 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)
19
Q

What is the definition of ‘immediate’?
What are the 2 definitions/interpretations for it?

A

Broad/wider interpretation

  • Imminent - in the nearest future

Narrow interpretation

20
Q

What are the 3 cases that show immediate (imminent) appehension

A
  • Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police Station
  • R v Ireland and Burstow [1998]
  • R v Lewis
21
Q

Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police Station

immediate - imminent apprehension

A

Facts

  1. D frightening a woman who was dressed in her night-clothes
    Looking through her bedroom window
    Caused her to anticipate fear

Held

  1. 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
22
Q

R v Ireland and Burstow [1998]

immediate

A

Lord Steyn

  • Used the term “imminent”
23
Q

What is meant by ‘unlawful personal violence’?

A

The threat must be unlawful

Note

  • A threat used in self-defence is not assault
24
Q

What case carifies ‘either intentionally causing fear of an immediate application of force or recklessly doing so’

A

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)
25
Q

What is the distinction between intention and recklessness

A

Intention

  1. Direct intent - R v Woolin [1999]
  2. Oblique intent - R v Woolin [1999]
  3. Foreseeability of risk - virtual certainty

Recklessness

  1. Subjective test - R v Cunningham
  2. Objective test - R v G & Another [2003]

Criminal Law (22 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions