Criminal Law: Non-fatal offences

Question 1

What act is assault and battery charged under?

Answer 1

Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which sets out the maximum punishment being six months imprisonment, a £5000 fine, or both.

Question 2

What is an assault?

Answer 2

An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force with intention.

Question 3

What was held in R V Constanza 1997?

Answer 3

The Court of Appeal how that letters could be an assault as there was a fear of violence.

Question 4

What is battery?

Answer 4

The application of unlawful physical force to another person or recklessness.

Question 5

What is the difference between assault and battery?

Answer 5

For assault, no touching is required, just the fear of immediate unlawful force, but actual force is required for battery.

Question 6

What is an example case where an omission can be a form of battery?

Answer 6

DPP V Santa-Bermudez 2003: The divisional Court held that the defendant’s omission to tell the police officer of the needle in his pocket during a search causing injury of the police officer may cause liability to arise.

Question 7

What is an example where force may be lawful?

Answer 7

In Self defence, prevention of crime or if the victim gives consent.

Question 8

What is the actus reus of assault?

Answer 8

Causing the victim to apprehend immediate, unlawful personal violence.

Question 9

What is the mens rea of assault?

Answer 9

Intention or subjective recklessness to causing the actus reus.

Question 10

What is the actus reus of Battery?

Answer 10

Inflicting unlawful application of force on another.

Question 11

What is the mens rea of battery?

Answer 11

Intention or subjective recklessness to inflicting unlawful personal violence.

Question 12

What is the actus reus of section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?

Answer 12

Proving that there was an assault or battery.

The assault/ battery is occasioning actual bodily harm.

Question 13

What was held in R V Chan Fook 1994?

Answer 13

The courts held that “harm” means “injury” and “actual” indicates the injury should not be trivial. It covers injuries such as bruising and grazes.

Question 14

What was held in R V Smith 2006?

Answer 14

The court held that cutting a substantial amount of hair off a victim was sufficient for battery.

Question 15

What is the mens rea of Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?

Answer 15

The defendant must intend or be subjectively reckless as to whether the victim fears or is subjected to unlawful force.

Question 16

What are two example cases that demonstrates the mens rea of Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?

Answer 16

R V Roberts 1971: the defendant was found guilty of sexual assault with causing actual bodily harm. Because he intended to apply unlawful force when he tried to take the victims coat off, causing her to jump out of a moving vehicle.

R V Chan Fook: a conviction for ABH could not stand.

Question 17

What is a wound?

Answer 17

A cut in the skin.

Question 18

What case defines grievous bodily harm?

Answer 18

DPP V Smith 1961: it was how that grievous bodily harm means “really serious harm.”

Question 19

What is the actus of Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?

Answer 19

Causing greivous bodily harm

Question 20

What is the mens rea of Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?

Answer 20

Where the defendant intended that their act results in unlawful bodily harm.

Question 21

What is the actus reus of Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?

Answer 21

Causing grievous bodily harm.

Question 22

What is the mens rea of Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?

Answer 22

Where the defendant intended to do some grievous bodily harm.

Question 23

What is an example case for s18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?

Answer 23

Belfron 1966: the court held that it was essential to prove specific intent for a s18 offence.

Question 24

Why is there a need for reform of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?

Answer 24

It is out of date. For example, it doesn’t understand mental health problems because the act only refers to “bodily” harm.

There are inconsistencies between offences as a person who causes a small cut can be charged under section 20 when many wounds don’t equate to grievous bodily harm.

The use of the word “maliciously” in section 20 meant the intention to do the type of harm, but in modern day it suggests acting deliberately.