Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Criminal Law > Consent and Violence > Flashcards

Consent and Violence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

the significance of bodily integrity is shown in these cases

A

Thomas 1985 - unwanted touching of skirt = battery

St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S 1999

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

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

A

R v Ireland

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

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

A

R v Horseferry Magistrates ex parte Siadatan

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

Assault

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

A

Smith v Woking Police Force

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

Assault

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

A

DPP v Ramos

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

Assault

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

A

Constanza

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Assault:

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

A

Logdon v DPP

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

assault:Conditional threats may constitute assault - unclear

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Battery

harm caused during struggle - held there was intention/ recklessness

A

R v Venna

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

Battery

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

A

DPP v Haystead

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Battery

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

A

Collins v Wilcock

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Battery

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

A

Fagan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

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

A

DPP v Santa- Bermudez

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

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

A

Nelson

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

ABH

More than merely transient and trifling harm, not necessarily permanent

A

R v Donovan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

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

A

R v Chan Fook

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Proving ABH by assault:

causing fear so reacting –> ABH (2)

A

Roberts

R v Lewis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

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

A

R v Savage

19
Q

psychological injuries can constitute ABH (brain part of body)

A

Ireland

20
Q

personal harm - cutting off hair

A

DPP v Smith

21
Q

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

A

Savage

Parmenter

22
Q

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

A

DPP v Parmenter
Savage

DPP v A

23
Q

GBH

A wound requires a break in the continuity of the skin

A

C (a minor) v Eisenhower

24
Q

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

A

DPP v Smith

25
Q

GBH

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

A

Brown and Stratton

26
Q

GBH

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

A

R v Bollom

27
Q

GBH

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

A

R v Birmingham

28
Q

GBH

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

A

R v Burstow

29
Q

GBH

Inflicting does not necessarily involve assault or battery

A

R v Wilson

30
Q

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

A

R v Burstow

31
Q

Horseplay/ boys being boys

A

R v Jones

R v Aitken

32
Q

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

A

R v Barnes

33
Q

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

A

AG’s Ref (no.6 of 1980)

34
Q

Surgery and violence - what exactly do you consent to

A

Simon Bramhall

35
Q

Consent offers no defence to serious harm

public interest test to guide when an exception should be created

A

Brown

36
Q

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

A

R v Wilson (branded intials on wife)

R v Emmett - erotic asphyxiation and lit lighter fluid on V’s breasts.

37
Q

50 Shades defence

A

R v Lock

R v Blakemore

38
Q

Intentionally transmitting HIV = criminal

A

Daryll Rowe

39
Q

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

A

R v Dica

40
Q

For consent to be valid, it must be informed

A

R v Konzani

41
Q

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

A

Lord Justice Judge in R v Dica

42
Q

Slippery slope to widespread criminalisation of all STI transmission??

A

R v Golding

43
Q

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

A

Nathan Jackson

Criminal Law (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions