Criminal -OAP Final

Question 0

R v Ireland and Burstow

Answer 0

Telephone calls can be assault.
Despite the seeming lack of proximity and immediacy required by the actus reus of s39 assault, the House of Lords confirmed that answering the phone would’ve caused immediate fear.

Question 1

R v Constanza

Answer 1

-assault can be inflicted by words - does not have to be physical.

Question 2

Actus reus s39 assault

Answer 2

D causes V immediate fear of unlawful violence

Question 3

Mens rea s39 assault

Answer 3

D intends to cause V to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force.
Or must have foreseen that such a fear would have arisen given the circumstances.

Question 4

Thomas

Answer 4

To constitute a battery the force does not have to be applied to the V’s body.
Stated obiter that touching the bottom of a woman’s skirt was equivalent to touching the woman herself.

Question 5

FAGAN p

Answer 5

Running over a police officers foot = battery

Question 6

Actus reus of s39 battery

Answer 6

D application of unlawful force

Question 7

Mens rea s39 battery

Answer 7

D must have intended or been subjectively reckless as to the application of unlawful force.

Question 8

S47 actus reus

Answer 8

Prosecution must prove that D had the actus reus of s39 assault or battery

• D caused fear of immediate unlawful violence.
• D applied an unlawful force.

Question 9

S47 mens rea

Answer 9

There is no additional mens rea requirement for s47.

• d must have intended to cause V to apprehend the unlawful use of force or to have reasonably foreseen that such fear might arise.
• d intentionally caused or been subjectively reckless as to the application of unlawful force.

Question 10

Miller

Answer 10

ABH - hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort of the V.
Broad application of what is meant by ABH - thus meaning that simply any discomfort to the V could be ABH.

Question 11

Chan v Fook

Answer 11

Confirmed that physiatric injury could constitute ABH however it must be a recognisable and identifiable clinical condition.
-Ireland confirmed this inclusion of physciatric harm.

Court of Appeal said that the word actual indicates that the injury should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant.

Question 12

Donvan.

Answer 12

Held that the injury had to be more than merely transient and trifling.

Question 13

DPP v Smith

Answer 13

Held that the cutting off of someone’s hair amounted to ABH.

Question 14

Mens rea- r v Roberts

Savage and Parmenter

Answer 14

Confirms that no additional mens rea is required for s47.
Savage: the D threw a pint over ex’s new girlfriend, the glass dropped and cut the V’s wrists.
Held s47 that the mens rea was that she had intended to or ws reckless as to causing ABH.

Question 15

S20 actus reus

Answer 15

Prosecution must show that the D either inflicted GBH or wounded the victim.

Question 16

DPP v Smith

Answer 16

House of Lords emphasised that GBH should be given its ordinary and natural meaning = really serious harm.

Question 17

Ireland and Burstow

Answer 17

Really serious physchiatric injury can amount to GBH.

Question 18

R v Bollom

Answer 18

The Courts use a subjective approach when deciding whether the harm caused was really serious, gradations will be applied as to age/frailty etc.
Bollom -17 month child who had bruises on her body- held that was s47 considering her condition.

Question 19

Inflict?

Answer 19

It was thought that infliction under s20 -GBH had to be caused by the direct application of force.
-however given wider definition than that.
After Ireland and Burstow- the word inflict no longer implies the direct application of force.
The House stated that s20 could be committed where no physical force had been directly or indirectly applied on the body of the victim.

Question 20

R v Dica

Answer 20

Prosecution brought under s20 infliction.
D knew that he was HIV positive and had unprotected sex with 2 women.
CA held that a person could be liable under s20 for recklessly infecting another with HIV.

Question 21

Wounding.

JCC v Eisenhower

Answer 21

Wounding requires breaking of the skin.
-d fired an air pistol, hitting the victim in the eye with a pellet.
Thus rupturing a blood vessel causing internal bleeding.
The injury was not sufficient to constitute a wounding as the skin had not been broken.

Question 22

Mens rea for s20

Answer 22

Intention to cause another person some harm/ or be subjectively reckless as to whether he suffers some harm.

Question 23

Mowatt

Savage and Parmeneter

Answer 23

There is no need to intend to be reckless as to causing GBH or wounding.
D only need intend to be reckless that his or her acts could have caused some physical harm.
Lord Diplock: it is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.

Question 24

Director of Public Prosecutions v A

Answer 24

Highlighted the fact that the defendant is only required to have foreseen that some harm might occur, not would.

Question 25

Transmission of aids
Dica
R v Adaye

Answer 25

D need not have known he was actually infected, provided that he was aware that there was a high risk that he was infected.

Question 26

Offences against person s18 actus reus

Answer 26

Same as s20- infliction to wound or harm.

Question 27

Mens rea s18

Answer 27

This is the part that makes it the most serious offence.
Intention to cause GBH or to avoid arrest whilst behaving maliciously. (Maliciously the Caldwe
-it is the intention criteria that makes it life in prison as the person with intention is considered to have greater moral fault than a person acting recklessly.

Question 28

Morrison

Answer 28

Where the ulterior motive for s18 is to resist arrest, the prosecution must prove that D realised there was a risk of injury and took that risk.

Question 29

Causation

Answer 29

For all these offences against the person, the issue of causation may be relevant is there is any question that the D was not the cause of the relevant result.
-so in assault, if the victim was put in fear of immediate and unlawful force but the D did not cause that fear.

Question 30

Reform

Answer 30

S20 replacement of 5 years imprisonment to 7 - nicely simple.

Also that the requirement that D must recognise the risk of serious injury thus overturning the current Mowatt principle requiring sight of only some harm- whether serious or not.

-again no restrictions on the means by which the serious injury should be caused, this avoiding once and for all any argument about meaning of inflict or cause.