Consent and Violence

Question 1

the significance of bodily integrity is shown in these cases

Answer 1

Thomas 1985 - unwanted touching of skirt = battery

St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S 1999

Question 2

Assault
No reason why something said cannot be capable of casing an apprehension of immediate personal violence
silence just as capable of this

Answer 2

R v Ireland

Question 3

Assault
Immediate = proximity in time and causation
does not mean instantaneous but imminent

Answer 3

R v Horseferry Magistrates ex parte Siadatan

Question 4

Assault

Can fear immediate unlawful force even if attacker can’t get to you

Answer 4

Smith v Woking Police Force

Question 5

Assault

Actual danger less important than V’s perception of danger. Given context, an attack can seem more imminent –> fear

Answer 5

DPP v Ramos

Question 6

Assault

It is enough that V fears there may be violence ‘at some time not excluding the immediate future’

Answer 6

Constanza

Question 7

Assault:

Irrelevant whether D intended to carry out the attack or not if fear was caused

Answer 7

Logdon v DPP

Question 8

assault:Conditional threats may constitute assault - unclear

Answer 8

R (Kracher) v Leicester Magistrates’ Court - ‘fuck off if you come round the back I will beat you up’ was held to be an assault

Question 9

Battery

harm caused during struggle - held there was intention/ recklessness

Answer 9

R v Venna

Question 10

Battery

Force does not have to be directly inflicted as long as it is applied through a medium controlled by D

Answer 10

DPP v Haystead

Question 11

Battery

Mere touching is not enough, must be more than everyday/ what is necessary

Answer 11

Collins v Wilcock

Question 12

Battery

Can be carried out by an object. Case of continuous battery

Answer 12

Fagan

Question 13

Battery
When D creates a risk by act / word/ conduct and exposes another to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury–> evidential basis for actus reus

Answer 13

DPP v Santa- Bermudez

Question 14

Distinction between assault and battery - should not have interchangeable mens rea (eg attempting to commit battery, mens rea and actually committed assault, actus reus)

Answer 14

Nelson

Question 15

ABH

More than merely transient and trifling harm, not necessarily permanent

Answer 15

R v Donovan

Question 16

ABH
Harm = injury
not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant

Answer 16

R v Chan Fook

Question 17

Proving ABH by assault:

causing fear so reacting –> ABH (2)

Answer 17

Roberts

R v Lewis

Question 18

D only needs to foresee the assault or battery not the actual level of harm caused

Answer 18

R v Savage

Question 19

psychological injuries can constitute ABH (brain part of body)

Answer 19

Ireland

Question 20

personal harm - cutting off hair

Answer 20

DPP v Smith

Question 21

As you do not need to foresee the ABH, infringes the correspondence principle

Answer 21

Savage

Parmenter

Question 22

GBH s.20
MR test =subjective recklessness with foresight only of some harm - constructive rather than corresponding liability

Only necessary to foresee than harm might occur. Cunningham recklessness

Answer 22

DPP v Parmenter
Savage

DPP v A

Question 23

GBH

A wound requires a break in the continuity of the skin

Answer 23

C (a minor) v Eisenhower

Question 24

GBH
‘no more and no less than really serious harm’
use ‘contemporary social standards’ to determine if it is GBH

Answer 24

DPP v Smith

Question 25

GBH | judge directed jury - an injury is serious if V thinks it is. Appeal allowed as this should be objective

Answer 25

Brown and Stratton

Question 26

GBH | Can consider the particular vulnerability of V when assessing whether the harm was really serious

Answer 26

R v Bollom

Question 27

GBH | Totality of injuries used - many small injuries could make up really serious harm

Answer 27

R v Birmingham

Question 28

GBH | psychiatric injury can amount to GBH. Infliction does not require force to be made to the body

Answer 28

R v Burstow

Question 29

GBH | Inflicting does not necessarily involve assault or battery

Answer 29

R v Wilson

Question 30

GBH s.18 Cause and inflict are different but there is no radical divergence between the two. Cause traditionally thought to be wider but different narrowed - inflict can include words/ silence

Answer 30

R v Burstow

Question 31

Horseplay/ boys being boys

Answer 31

R v Jones | R v Aitken

Question 32

Was the harm something to be anticipated in the activity (i.e. sport)

Answer 32

R v Barnes

Question 33

there is a limit to consent making violence ok (public interest reasons)

Answer 33

AG's Ref (no.6 of 1980)

Question 34

Surgery and violence - what exactly do you consent to

Answer 34

Simon Bramhall

Question 35

Consent offers no defence to serious harm | public interest test to guide when an exception should be created

Answer 35

Brown

Question 36

Sexually motivated violence is a guise for domestic violence and should be criminalised. Cases that may add weight to this:

Answer 36

R v Wilson (branded intials on wife) | R v Emmett - erotic asphyxiation and lit lighter fluid on V's breasts.

Question 37

50 Shades defence

Answer 37

R v Lock | R v Blakemore

Question 38

Intentionally transmitting HIV = criminal

Answer 38

Daryll Rowe

Question 39

moral duty in a relationship to disclose about STI but casual sex no - you assume the risk

Answer 39

R v Dica

Question 40

For consent to be valid, it must be informed

Answer 40

R v Konzani

Question 41

'impracticability of enforcement and the haphazard nature of its impact' permitted to take risks in other aspects of life - why not here

Answer 41

Lord Justice Judge in R v Dica

Question 42

Slippery slope to widespread criminalisation of all STI transmission??

Answer 42

R v Golding

Question 43

Attaching a stigma to people who are HIV positive - injury was based upon HIV status despite it being an assault

Answer 43

Nathan Jackson