Consent and Violence Flashcards
the significance of bodily integrity is shown in these cases
Thomas 1985 - unwanted touching of skirt = battery
St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S 1999
Assault
No reason why something said cannot be capable of casing an apprehension of immediate personal violence
silence just as capable of this
R v Ireland
Assault
Immediate = proximity in time and causation
does not mean instantaneous but imminent
R v Horseferry Magistrates ex parte Siadatan
Assault
Can fear immediate unlawful force even if attacker can’t get to you
Smith v Woking Police Force
Assault
Actual danger less important than V’s perception of danger. Given context, an attack can seem more imminent –> fear
DPP v Ramos
Assault
It is enough that V fears there may be violence ‘at some time not excluding the immediate future’
Constanza
Assault:
Irrelevant whether D intended to carry out the attack or not if fear was caused
Logdon v DPP
assault:Conditional threats may constitute assault - unclear
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
Battery
harm caused during struggle - held there was intention/ recklessness
R v Venna
Battery
Force does not have to be directly inflicted as long as it is applied through a medium controlled by D
DPP v Haystead
Battery
Mere touching is not enough, must be more than everyday/ what is necessary
Collins v Wilcock
Battery
Can be carried out by an object. Case of continuous battery
Fagan
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
DPP v Santa- Bermudez
Distinction between assault and battery - should not have interchangeable mens rea (eg attempting to commit battery, mens rea and actually committed assault, actus reus)
Nelson
ABH
More than merely transient and trifling harm, not necessarily permanent
R v Donovan
ABH
Harm = injury
not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant
R v Chan Fook
Proving ABH by assault:
causing fear so reacting –> ABH (2)
Roberts
R v Lewis
D only needs to foresee the assault or battery not the actual level of harm caused
R v Savage
psychological injuries can constitute ABH (brain part of body)
Ireland
personal harm - cutting off hair
DPP v Smith
As you do not need to foresee the ABH, infringes the correspondence principle
Savage
Parmenter
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
DPP v Parmenter
Savage
DPP v A
GBH
A wound requires a break in the continuity of the skin
C (a minor) v Eisenhower
GBH
‘no more and no less than really serious harm’
use ‘contemporary social standards’ to determine if it is GBH
DPP v Smith
GBH
judge directed jury - an injury is serious if V thinks it is. Appeal allowed as this should be objective
Brown and Stratton
GBH
Can consider the particular vulnerability of V when assessing whether the harm was really serious
R v Bollom
GBH
Totality of injuries used - many small injuries could make up really serious harm
R v Birmingham
GBH
psychiatric injury can amount to GBH. Infliction does not require force to be made to the body
R v Burstow
GBH
Inflicting does not necessarily involve assault or battery
R v Wilson
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
R v Burstow
Horseplay/ boys being boys
R v Jones
R v Aitken
Was the harm something to be anticipated in the activity (i.e. sport)
R v Barnes
there is a limit to consent making violence ok (public interest reasons)
AG’s Ref (no.6 of 1980)
Surgery and violence - what exactly do you consent to
Simon Bramhall
Consent offers no defence to serious harm
public interest test to guide when an exception should be created
Brown
Sexually motivated violence is a guise for domestic violence and should be criminalised. Cases that may add weight to this:
R v Wilson (branded intials on wife)
R v Emmett - erotic asphyxiation and lit lighter fluid on V’s breasts.
50 Shades defence
R v Lock
R v Blakemore
Intentionally transmitting HIV = criminal
Daryll Rowe
moral duty in a relationship to disclose about STI but casual sex no - you assume the risk
R v Dica
For consent to be valid, it must be informed
R v Konzani
‘impracticability of enforcement and the haphazard nature of its impact’
permitted to take risks in other aspects of life - why not here
Lord Justice Judge in R v Dica
Slippery slope to widespread criminalisation of all STI transmission??
R v Golding
Attaching a stigma to people who are HIV positive - injury was based upon HIV status despite it being an assault
Nathan Jackson
