Criminal Unit 2 SBAQs Flashcards
Which of the following statements is wrong in relation to common law assault?
A. The victim must apprehend unlawful personal force.
B. The victim must actually be afraid.
C. The fear must be of immediate force.
D. Words may amount to an assault.
The statement which is wrong is set out in option B because, although the victim may actually be afraid, this is not a legal requirement. The victim must simply apprehend unlawful force or violence as set out in option A. Option C is also correct as the fear must be of immediate violence; as is option D because words may amount to an assault.
Is it true or false that silence may amount to an assault?
The statement is true as silence may amount to an assault, perhaps through an aggressive gesture which causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence, or through repeated telephone calls where the victim is confronted by silence.
Is the following statement true or false? An omission to act is capable of forming the actus reus of an assault or battery.
The statement is false so option B is the correct answer, as an omission cannot constitute an assault. Further, it is clear from the definition of the actus reus of these offences that an action is required, either to cause the victim to apprehend immediate personal violence or to inflict that violence.
Which of the following injuries is NOT capable of constituting actual bodily harm?
A. Cutting off a substantial part of the victim’s hair.
B. Giving the victim a split lip.
C. Causing the victim to become distressed.
D. Causing the victim to suffer clinical depression.
Option C is the correct answer. Causing the victim to become distressed alone cannot constitute actual bodily harm; only a recognised psychiatric illness or condition, as evidenced by a medical report, will be sufficient. All of the other injuries listed in options A, B and D could be classified as actual bodily harm.
What one or more of the following constitute the mens rea of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
A. Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm.
B. Intention or recklessness as to actual bodily harm.
C. Intention or recklessness as to causing the apprehension of immediate and unlawful force.
D. Intention or recklessness as to the application of unlawful force.
The correct statements are options C and D as an assault occasioning actual bodily harm requires only the mens rea of an assault or battery. There is no additional requirement that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the harm caused; hence, options A and B are wrong.
Which one of the following will satisfy the actus reus of wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm?
A. A cutting of both layers of the skin.
B. A small bruise.
C. Internal bleeding.
D. Reasonably serious harm.
You were right to pick option A because a wound is a cutting of both layers of the skin and the presence of blood will indicate this. Option B is wrong as an internal rupture of the blood vessels, which includes bruising, is not sufficient as the skin has not been broken; nor is internal bleeding (option C). The actus reus of inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 OAPA 1861 is satisfied by either a wound or grievous bodily harm. The latter has been interpreted to mean ‘really serious’ harm – not ‘reasonably serious’ harm so option D is wrong. The requirement for the harm to be serious explains why the ‘small’ bruise in option B would not be sufficient.
Which one of the following correctly describes the mens rea for an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm?
A. Intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
B. Recklessness as to causing actual bodily harm.
C. Intention or recklessness as to causing grievous bodily harm.
D. Intention or recklessness as to causing actual bodily harm.
Option D is the correct answer. As with most of the assaults, the level of mens rea required does not match the injury caused.
The mens rea for an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent may be committed in more than one way. Which one of the following does not satisfy all or part of the mens rea?
A. Recklessness as to causing grievous bodily harm.
B. Intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
C. Intention to resist arrest.
D. Intention to prevent the lawful apprehension of a person.
You are correct that recklessness as to causing grievous bodily harm is not sufficient to satisfy the mens rea for this offence; hence, option A is the only false statement. The mens rea of a s.18 assault is intention to cause grievous bodily harm, or alternatively, intention to resist / prevent arrest combined with an intention or recklessness as to causing actual bodily harm. Thus, options B, C and D all correctly describe the law.
Which one of the following statements correctly describes consent as a defence to the assault offences?
A. Consent is never a defence to an assault if it causes some harm.
B. Consent is only ever a defence to an assault if it is in the public interest.
C. Consent is a defence to a simple or physical assault but never a defence if serious harm is caused.
D. Consent is a defence to a simple or physical assault but only to assaults which cause harm if it falls within one of the recognised exceptions.
Option D is right as consent is a defence to a simple or physical assault but only to assaults which cause harm if it falls within one of the recognised exceptions. Options A and C are wrong because there are certain situations where consent can operate as a defence where harm is caused. Public interest is a factor in determining exceptions to the general rule that a victim cannot consent to harm, but no more, so option B is wrong.
Consent is only a defence to the statutory assaults if it falls within one of the recognised exceptions, in which case the accused must be acquitted. Which of the following defendants will not be able to rely upon the defence of consent?
A. Amaad and Howard are jostling each other and playfighting on the way to school. Amaad stumbles and falls to the floor, breaking his arm.
B. James is covered in tattoos but wants to change his appearance further. He pays for his tongue to be divided so it has the appearance of a lizard.
C. Mary takes a shot at goal during a hockey match but the ball hits Stella, an opposing player, on the face and fractures her jaw.
D. Vladimir operates on Jenny who has been rushed to hospital with a burst appendix.
You were right to select option B because, although ear-piercing and tattooing are recognised exceptions to the general rule, body modifications such as the creation of a ‘lizard tongue’ are not. Option A is an exception known as ‘horseplay’ but the court must consider when youngsters messing around (‘rough and ill-disciplined behaviour’) becomes bullying or worse. Surgical operations and other essential medical procedures are a recognised exception (option D); as is sport provided it is properly conducted (option C). In this scenario, Mary is shooting at goal and there is no suggestion that she has gone beyond the rules.
A man goes out for an evening to enjoy a game of bowling with a friend. During the game, there is a disagreement about the score and an argument ensues. The man picks up a bowling ball and hurls it towards his friend who tries to jump out of the way. In doing so, he trips up and falls over on the floor, causing him to sustain a fractured skull. In addition, he is so traumatised by the events that he goes on to develop anxiety and depression, which is clinically diagnosed as being really serious. When interviewed, the man accepts that he lost his temper and intended to really hurt his friend by throwing the bowling ball at him. He is now overcome with remorse.
Which of the following best describes the man’s liability for causing his friend grievous bodily harm?
A. He is liable for causing grievous bodily harm in relation to his friend’s fractured skull as he intended to really hurt him, but he is not liable for any offence in relation to the depression and anxiety caused.
B. He is liable for causing grievous bodily harm in relation to his friend’s fractured skull. He would only be liable for a lesser assault offence in relation to the depression and anxiety caused, because psychiatric injury can never amount to grievous bodily harm.
C. He is liable for causing grievous bodily harm in relation to both his friend’s fractured skull and the clinically diagnosed anxiety and depression, as they are both considered to be really serious harm which he intended to cause when he threw the bowling ball.
D. He is not liable for causing grievous bodily harm in relation to either injury as there is no ‘break in the continuity of the skin’ caused by his throwing the bowling ball or his friend falling over and fracturing his skull.
E. He is liable for causing grievous bodily harm in relation to both his friend’s fractured skull and the clinically diagnosed anxiety and depression, as he intended or was reckless as to causing some form of bodily or mental harm.
Option C is the best answer. For s.18 OAPA 1861, the AR is wounding or causing GBH and the MR is intent to cause GBH (or intent to resist/ prevent arrest and intent/ recklessness as to some bodily harm). In R v Burstow [1997] it was held that psychiatric injury could amount to grievous bodily harm if severe enough, although there must be a clinical diagnosis (which there is here). We are told both the fractured skull, and the anxiety and depression, are really serious. Furthermore, the man intended to cause some harm when he threw the bowling ball.
Options A and B are both wrong because psychiatric injury can be GBH (R v Burstow) if it is serious enough, as here. Option D is wrong because s.18 is not restricted to ‘wounding’ which is defined as a ‘break in the continuity of the skin’. A defendant can be charged with s.18 for causing GBH, namely, really serious harm whether that is physical and / or psychiatric (see above).
Option E is wrong because the mens rea is incorrectly stated. For a s.18 assault, the defendant must intend to cause really serious harm. It is not sufficient that he only intends or is reckless as to some form of bodily or mental harm (unless he is resisting/preventing arrest which does not apply here).
A man who is standing in a queue waiting for a bus objects when another passenger pushes in front of him, just as the bus arrives. After both get on the bus, the man begins shouting and swearing at the passenger, who becomes nervous and anxious. A police officer who is also on the bus goes to the passenger’s assistance. When the man shows no signs of calming down, the officer tries to arrest him. During the scuffle, the officer is bitten on her finger, an injury which draws blood and requires four stitches. In interview, the man states that he bit the officer to make her let go, so he could get off the bus. He denies intending to cause her really serious harm, but accepts that he knew the officer would suffer some harm by biting her in this way.
The prosecution have advised that they intend to charge the man with the most serious offence of assault in relation to the passenger and the police officer, which can be justified on the evidence.
Which of the following best describes the man’s potential liability in relation to the passenger and the police officer?
A. The man is liable for battery to the passenger and causing actual bodily harm to the officer.
B. The man is liable for battery in relation to the passenger and intentionally causing a wound to the officer.
C. The man is liable for simple assault in relation to the passenger; and intentionally resisting arrest and being reckless as to actual bodily harm to the officer.
D. The man is liable for simple assault in relation to the passenger and inflicting grievous bodily harm on the officer.
E. The man is not liable for an assault in relation to the passenger as he did not touch him, but he is liable for inflicting a wound to the officer.
The best answer is option C. With regard to the incident with the passenger, the man is liable for simple assault. This is because the man caused the passenger to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal physical force and intended or was reckless as to doing so. This is apparent from the evidence that the passenger was ‘nervous and anxious’.
The most serious offence with which the man could be charged for the attack on the police officer is a section 18 assault. The actus reus is to wound or cause grievous bodily harm. The man has caused a wound to the officer as he bites her finger drawing blood; this is apparent as the injury required four stitches. Although the man’s intention was not to cause grievous bodily harm, just to get off the bus, he is liable under the alternate mens rea. He has an intention to resist arrest and an intention (or recklessness) as to causing actual bodily harm.
Option A is wrong because the man is liable for simple assault and not battery, as he does not inflict unlawful personal force on the passenger. The option is also wrong as the question required the most serious assault to be identified. Thus, although the man could be charged with a s 47 assault, this does not meet that criteria.
Option B is wrong because the man is liable for assault and not battery. The second part of the statement is, however, correct.
Option D is wrong as, although the man could be charged with a s.20 assault on the officer, this is not the most serious offence that could be justified on the facts.
Option E is wrong because the man is liable for an assault on the passenger. It is also wrong because the man could be charged with a s.18 assault, rather than a (less serious) s.20 assault.
The defendant has been charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent. He is accused of scratching the victim, a friend of his. The defendant accepts that, as he was running away from a police officer to avoid being arrested, he must have scratched the victim when he ran past. However, the defendant states that, at the time of the offence, he was so focused on trying to escape that he did not notice that the victim, or anyone else, was nearby. The police summary confirms that the scratch drew blood but did not require stitches.
Which of the following statements best describes the criminal liability of the defendant for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm?
A. The defendant is not liable because he did not intend harm, nor did he foresee any risk of harm, to the victim or anyone else.
B. The defendant is not liable because a scratch will not be considered a serious enough injury to amount to a wound.
C. The defendant is not liable because the victim is his friend and therefore is unlikely to support a prosecution.
D. The defendant is liable because it would have been obvious to an objective bystander that there was some risk of harm to the victim, and so it should have been obvious to the defendant.
E. The defendant is liable because he intended to resist arrest, and it does not matter whether he intended or was reckless as to any harm being caused.
Option A is correct. The defendant did not have the requisite mens rea, as he did not notice that anyone was nearby because he was so focused on his escape. Thus, he did not foresee the risk of another being injured and go on to take it anyway (recklessness), nor intend to cause harm.
Option B is wrong because a scratch can amount to a wound as long as both layers of skin are broken - Moriarty v Brookes (1834); and option C is wrong because whether a victim supports a prosecution or not, does not affect whether someone is criminally liable.
Option D is wrong because the test for recklessness is a subjective one and therefore it is irrelevant whether the defendant ought have seen the risk, if he truly did not. Finally, option E is wrong because, to be guilty of section 18, it is not enough that the defendant intended to resist arrest, as he must also intend or be reckless as to some harm.
A woman steals a bottle of perfume from a shop. She is seen by a police officer who takes hold of her by the arm and informs her that she is under arrest. The woman struggles with the police officer and in a bid to escape, hits him over the head with the perfume bottle. The woman did not want to cause really serious harm to the police officer but did expect at least some harm. As a result of being hit, the police officer falls over, hits the pavement and fractures his skull.
Is the woman guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent?
A. Yes, because she was reckless as to resisting arrest and to causing actual bodily harm.
B. Yes, because she intended to resist arrest and was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm.
C. No, because a fractured skull is not grievous bodily harm.
D. No, because she did not foresee any risk of causing really serious harm.
E. No, because she did not intend to cause really serious harm.
Option B is correct as the mens rea for causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) is satisfied if an individual intends to resist arrest and either intended, or was reckless, as to causing actual bodily harm/some harm. Here, the woman both intends to resist arrest (‘in a bid to escape’) and is reckless as to actual bodily harm, in that she foresaw a risk of some harm, went on to take it anyway and that risk was unjustified (R v Cunningham [1957]) (‘did expect at least some harm’.)
Option A is wrong as the mens rea is not satisfied if someone is merely reckless as to resisting arrest, they must intend it. Option C is wrong as a fractured skull is an example of grievous bodily harm, meaning really serious harm - DPP v Smith [1961].
Option D is wrong as foreseeing a risk of causing really serious harm is not part of the mens rea for s.18. On these facts, the woman foresaw a risk of some harm and coupled with her intent to resist arrest that is sufficient for the mens rea to be satisfied.
Option E is wrong because whilst it is true that the woman did not intend to cause really serious harm, on these facts, the woman foresaw a risk of some harm and coupled with her intent to resist arrest that is sufficient for the mens rea to be satisfied.
A woman and her boyfriend are having dinner in the kitchen when an argument starts. The woman shouts at her boyfriend for burning the dinner again and she gets up to walk out. The boyfriend stands up to block her exit and she pushes him away. He falls heavily against the oven causing a large bruise on his arm.
What does the prosecution need to prove to convict the woman of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
A. The prosecution must prove that the woman caused actual bodily harm and intended or was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm.
B. The prosecution must prove that the woman inflicted unlawful personal force which caused actual bodily harm and she intended or was reckless as to the infliction of such force.
C. The prosecution must prove that the woman inflicted unlawful personal force and intended or was reckless as to inflicting unlawful personal force.
D. The prosecution must prove that she caused the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal force which caused actual bodily harm and she intended or was reckless as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal force.
E. The prosecution must provide that the woman inflicted unlawful personal force which caused actual bodily harm and she intended or was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm
B is the correct answer. For the actus reus the prosecution must prove that the woman committed a simple assault or battery which caused (‘occasioned’) actual bodily harm. As the woman pushes her boyfriend, the relevant assault is a battery which requires the infliction of unlawful personal force. Such force must cause actual bodily harm. Here the boyfriend suffers a large bruise. For the mens rea, the prosecution need only prove that the woman intended or was reckless as to the infliction of unlawful personal force. There is no need to prove she intended or was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm (R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1991]).
Options A and E are wrong because the prosecution does not need to prove that the woman intended or was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm.
Option D is wrong on these facts because it refers to a simple assault rather than a physical assault which is not relevant to these facts. Finally, option C is incomplete because for the actus reus the prosecution must prove that the woman inflicted unlawful personal force which caused actual bodily harm.
