Chapter 8 key cases (Non-fatal offences against the person)

Question 1

R v Constanza (1997)?

Answer 1

• The defendant had written over 800 letters and made a number of phone calls to the victim.
• The victim interpreted the last two letters as clear threats.
• There was an assault as there was a ‘fear of violence at some time, not excluding the immediate future’.

Question 2

R v Misalati (2017)?

Answer 2

• The defendant verbally and racially abused staff at a job centre and spat at a third member of staff.
• There was evidence that the members of staff feared violence and he was convicted of assault.

Question 3

Smith v Cheif Superintendant of Woking Police Station (1983)?

Answer 3

• The defendant went into a garden and looked through the female victims bedroom window on the ground floor at about 11pm.
• She was terrified, one evening, and thought the defendant was about to enter the room.
• Although he was outside and no attack could be made at that immediate moment, fear of might what he might do next was sufficient.

Question 4

Collins v Wilcock (1984)?

Answer 4

• The defendant appealed against her conviction for assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty.
• His intention was to caution her with respect to activity as a prostitute.
• The law did not give him power to detain her, but he took hold of her.
• She resisted, and injured him.
• As there was no arrest, and no power implied or otherwise to arrest her

Question 5

Pegram v DPP (2019)?

Answer 5

• A police officer took hold of Pegrams arm with what he judged to be just enough force to get his attention, to warn him that he may be about to commit a public order offence.
• The court stated that the police officer was acting in the execution of his duty.
• It is lawful for a police officer or any other person to make moderate and generally acceptable physical contact with another person to attract their attention.
• Their appeal was dismissed.

Question 6

DPP v K (1990)?

Answer 6

• A 15-year-old took acid from the science room to the school toilets.
• When he heard someone coming, he hid it in the hand drier.
• The nozzle was pointing upwards and caused permanent scars on his face.
• The court stated that a common assault could be committed by an indirect act.

Question 7

DPP v Santa-Bermudez (2003)?

Answer 7

• A policewoman, before searching defendants pockets, asked him if he had any sharp objects in there.
  -He replied saying ‘no’, but when the police officer put her hand in his pocket, she was injured by a needle which caused bleeding.
• The failure to tell her about the needle caused the actus reus of the assault.

Question 8

Brown (1994)?

Answer 8

• The defendants were convicted of ss 47 and 20, after having performed consensual acts of sado-masochism.
• They inflicted injuries to each other.
• They had pleaded guilty.

Question 9

R v BM (2018)?

Answer 9

• The defendant, BM, was a registered tattooist and body piercer who also provided body modification.
• He had no formal medical qualifications.
• He was convicted for three counts of causing actual bodily harm, caused by procedures he carried out without anaesthetics:
  . removal of an ear
  . removal of a nipple
  . splitting a customer’s tongue to resemble a reptiles tongue
• All customers had consented to these serious irreversible actions.

Question 10

JJC v Eisenhower (1983)?

Answer 10

• The victim was hit in the eye by a shotgun pellet.
• This did not penetrate the eye but did cause severe bleeding under the surface.
• As there was no cut, it was held that this was not a wound.
• The cut must be of the whole skin - both layers.

Question 11

R v Bollom (2004)?

Answer 11

• A 17-month-old child had bruising to her abdomen, both arms and left leg.
• While the defendant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the Court of Appeal stated that bruising could amount to grievous bodily harm.

Question 12

R v Dica (2004)?

Answer 12

• The defendant had had unprotected but consensual sex with two women, without telling him he was HIV positive.
• Both women became infected as a result.
• This could amount to grievous bodily harm, this is became consent sex did not mean consent to infection.

Question 13

R v Golding (2014)?

Answer 13

• The defendant did not disclose his diagnosis of genital herpes to the victim which he passed on to her.
• He understood that he had the infection and how it is transmitted.
• By not preventing transmission, or disclosing his condition and allowing the victim to make an informed consent to the risk, he was guilty of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm under s 20.