Chapter 15- Non fatal offences against the person Flashcards
1
Q
What happens in Smith v Chief Superintendant of Woking Police Station and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- D broke into a garden and looked into V ‘s bedroom window at night
- V was terrified and thought D was about to enter the room
- The court held that V was frightened by his conduct
- the basis of fear was that V didn’t know what was going to happen, but it was likely to be of a violent nature
- Fear of what he might do next was sufficiently immediate for the purposes of the offence
- (Actus reus of assault- apprehend immediate unlawful force)
2
Q
What happens in Collins v Wilcock and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- 2 police officers saw 2 women soliciting prostitution
- They asked the appellant to get into the police car for questioning, but refused and walked away
- 1 officer followed her to find out her identity
- She refused to speak, leading to the officer taking her by the arm and her becoming abusive
- She was convicted of assault
- She appealed on the basis that the officer was acting unlawfully as he wasn’t arresting her
- Court held that the officer had committed battery and the D was entitled to free here self
- (Actus reus of battery)
3
Q
What happened in DPP v K and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Schoolboy took sulphuric acid from school lab without permission and wanted to try the reaction on toilet paper
- Whilst in the toilet he heard footsteps, panicked and put the acid into a hot-air hand drier to hid it
- He returned to class
- Another pupil used the drier and was sprayed with acid
- D was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s 47)
- Magistrates acquitted him because he didn’t intend to hurt anyone
- prosecution appealed to the Queen’s bench Division which held that common assault could be committed by an indirect act
- (Indirect act of the actus reus of battery)
4
Q
What happened in DPP v Santa-Bermudez and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Policewomen asked D if he had any sharp objects on him before searching his pockets
- D said no
- She was injured by a needle which caused bleeding
- Divisional Court held that the D’s failure to tell her about the needle could amount to the actus reus for the purposes of an assault causing actual bodily harm
- (Omissions of the actus reus of battery)
5
Q
What happened in DPP v Smith and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- D has an argument with his girlfriend
- He cut off her ponytail and some hair from the top of her head
- Charged under s 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
- Magistrates found that there was no case to argue as they thought cutting hair could not amount to actual bodily harm
- Prosecution appealed
- Divisional Court held that cutting off a substantial amount of hair could be actual bodily harm
- (Actual bodily harm, s 47 actus reus)
6
Q
What happened in R v Roberts and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- D, who driving a car, made advances to the girl in the passenger seat and tried to take her coat off
- She feared he was going to commit a more serious assault and jumped from the car while it was travelling at about 30 miles an hour
- She was slightly injured
- D found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm even though he hadn’t intended injury
- He had intended to apply unlawful force when he touched her
- This satisfied the mens rea for a common assault and so he was guilty of an offence under s 47
- (Mens rea of s 47)
7
Q
What happened in R v Dica and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- D had unprotected sex with 2 women
- didn’t tell them he had HIV
- Both women became infected
- Although on appeal the D’s conviction was quashed, there was no doubt that infecting someone with HIV was inflicting grievous bodily harm
- At re-trial he was convicted
- (Grievous bodily harm of s 20)
8
Q
What happened in R v Burstow and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- D carried 8 month campaign of harassment against a women who he had a brief relationship with 3 years earlier
- Harassment consisted of both silent and abusive phone calls, hate mail and stalking
- Caused V to suffer from severe depression
- D’s conviction under s 20 OAPA 1861 was upheld up the HoL
- (Inflicting grievous bodily harm, s 20)
9
Q
What happened in R v Parmenter and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- D injured his 3 month old baby when he threw them in the air and caught them
- D said he had done this with slightly older children and didn’t realise there was a risk of injury
- He was convicted of an offence under s 20
- HoL quashed conviction as there was no evidence that he foresaw any injury, but substituted a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s 47
- (Mens rea of s 20)
10
Q
What happened in R v Taylor and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- V was found with scratches across his face and a stab wound on his back
- Photos showed no more than surface scratches and it was impossible to tell the wounds deepth
- Medical evidence didn’t help to show D’s intent
- Judge directed jury that they must be sure that the prosecution had proved D intended to cause GBH or to wound
- D was convicted of a s 18 offence
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction on the basis that the judge had misdirected the jury
- An intention to wound was not sufficient for the mens rea of s18
- instead the court of appeal substituted a conviction of s 20
- (Mens rea of s 18)
11
Q
What happened in R v Morrison and what area of law does it relate to?
A
- Police officer seized hold of D and told him that she was arresting him
- He dived through a window, dragging her with him so that her face was badly cut
- Court of Appeal held that as the word ‘maliciously’ is used in respect of this part of the section it must have the same meaning as in Cunningham
- This means that the prosecution must prove that the D either intended injury or realised there was a risk of injury and took that risk
- (Intent to do some GBH of s 18)
