Criminal Law - Assaults (3) Flashcards
What are assaults?
Assaults: Offences against the person are non-fatal assaults, governed under two main acts (CJA and OAPA).
What is the offence of simple/common assault?
Simple/Common Assault: Causing a victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful application of personal force (s39 CJA).
(1) Actus Reus: Defendant commits act which causes victim to apprehend an immediate use of personal force.
Apprehension: Victim themself must apprehend force, but need not be in fear. Threats towards third parties are not enough.
Action: This can be a perceived physical movement, or words alone, or even silence (R v Ireland).
Stalking: Stalking can amount to simple assault, such as silent calls (R v Burstow).
Conditional Threats: Conditional threats only suffice if it amounts to perceiving an immediate threat, i.e. ‘if you do not leave right this second I will break your neck’ (Read v Coker).
Words Negating Threat: If the defendant says words to negate the threat then it is not assault, i.e. ‘if I was stupid I would hit you’ (Tuberville v Savage).
Requirement: Victim must stop believing that an assault is imminent.
Context Negating Threat: Where it is obvious the defendant is joking, such as ‘I wish I could set this place on fire’ about a school as a joke, it is not assault as it is obviously a joke (Chambers v DPP).
(2) Mens Rea: Intention or recklessness to cause the victim’s apprehension (R v Venna).
Test: Defendant subjectively recognised risk of apprehension (R v Spratt).
What is the offence of physical assault/battery?
Physical Assault/Battery: Defendant inflicts unlawful personal force on victim (s30 CJA).
(1) Actus Reus: Defendant unlawfully inflicts personal force on victim.
Personal Force: Direct or indirect force, such as placing hazardous obstacles (Haystead v Derbyshire; DPP v K).
Delayed Force: Force may also be delayed, such as by setting traps.
Omission: Can arise by omission if the defendant accidentally applies force but then refuses to remove force.
Injury: There is no injury required.
(2) Mens Rea: Defendant intended or recklessness to either inflicting force, or to causing victim to apprehend use of unlawful force.
What is the offence of section 47 ABH?
Section 47 ABH: Defendant inflicts actual bodily harm on victim (s47 OAPA).
(1) Actus Reus: Defendant commits actual bodily harm on victim. This is harm which interferes with the health or comfort of the victim, and is more than transient or trifling (R v Miller; R v Donovan).
Mental Harm: Medically recognised mental harm will suffice, but not rage or panic (R v Ireland).
Threshold: CPS tends to charge only if effecting medical treatment or permanent effects.
Escapes: If a victim reasonably harms themself to escape a common law assault, this can be ABH.
(2) Mens Rea: Defendant intended or reckless to a common law assault. Harm need not be foreseen.
What is the offence of Section 20 Inflicting GBH/Wounding?
Section 20 GBH/Wounding: Defendant maliciously wounds or causes GBH of victim (s20 OAPA).
(1) Actus Reus: Unlawfully inflicts wounding or causing GBH of a victim.
Unlawful: Without lawful justification, i.e. self-defence (R v Horwood).
Wound: Breaking both layers of skin, but not bruising or internal bleeding (Moriarty v Brooks).
Internal Bleeding: More likely to constitute GBH.
GBH: Really serious harm, as determined by jury (DPP v Smith).
Examples: Skull fracture, internal injuries, broken bones.
Psychiatric Harm: Can constitute GBH if sufficiently serious (R v Burstow).
(2) Mens Rea: Intention or recklessness to cause ABH, i.e. some harm.
Effect: Only need to foresee some bodily harm, need not be really serious (Savage; Parmenter).
What is the offence of Section 18 GBH with Intent?
Section 18 GBH with Intent: Defendant intentionally wounds or causes GBH of victim (s18 OAPA).
(1) Actus Reus: Unlawfully causing wounding or GBH of victim (differs from ‘inflict’, deemed to be wider).
(2) Mens Rea 1: Defendant intended to cause GBH (not wounding).
(3) Mens Rea 2: Or intended to resist lawful arrest and intended or was reckless to causing ABH (not GBH).
What is the offence of consent?
Defence of Consent: Consent to assault may act as a complete defence.
(1) Implied Consent: Courts will imply consent into normal situations, such as busy bustling on a street.
(2) Express Consent: Victims can consent to common law assaults if they know the nature and quality of the act they are consenting to, and do so freely (R v Tabassum).
Children: Children can consent, provided the jury deems them to have sufficient intelligence and understanding to do so.
(3) Method: Must be expressed or implied in a legally recognised manner, and given with capacity, freedom and information. If ABH or GBH, must fall within a legally valid category of consent.
Consent to Statutory Harm
Consent to Statutory Harm: Generally, one cannot consent to ABH/GBH, subject to exceptions (A-G Reference No 6; R v Brown), typically if they have social benefit or it would be unreasonable to criminalise due to tradition.
(1) Surgery: One can consent to surgical operations.
(2) Dangerous Exhibitions: One can consent to dangerous exhibitions.
(3) Properly Conducted Sports: One can consent to properly conducted sports, provided the injury is within the confines of the sport, and not a deliberate assault. Conduct beyond rules is assault, but must be more than just outside the rules (R v Barnes).
Implied Consent: Consent is implied, unless injury is intended (other than combat sports).
(4) Body-Modification: Victims can consent to tattooing and piercing, but not serious irreversible body modifications beyond those traditionally practised.
>Man could not legally consent to having his body modified into a lizard man (R v BM).
(5) Horseplay: Light horseplay is generally okay.
(6) Religious Practices: Traditional religious practices are permitted, i.e. ritual circumcision.
(7) Sexual Infection: One may consent to sexual infection if they are fully informed. If the infected person is aware and the other is not, and they intend to transmit the infection, it is a criminal offence.
(8) Sadomasochism: Courts will not generally consent to sadomasochistic harm, unless it is within a marital context.
