DELETE

Question 1

What is the mens rea for assault?

Answer 1

either an intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence, or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused

Question 2

What is the mens rea for battery?

Answer 2

either an intention to apply unlawful physical force to another or recklessness as to whether unlawful force is applied

Question 3

What 2 things are sufficient for both assault and battery?

Answer 3

intention or recklessness

Question 4

What is the test for recklessness?

Answer 4

subjective

Question 5

How can a person have committed an assault under subjective recklessness?

Answer 5

if they realised that there was a risk that their actions could cause another to fear unlawful personal violence

Question 6

What are Assault and battery classed as?

Answer 6

offences of basic intent

Question 7

How can a person have committed a battery under subjective recklessness?

Answer 7

The defendant must have realised that there is a risk that his actions (or omission) could cause unlawful force to be applied to another

Question 8

Assault and battery are classed as offences of basic intent, what does this mean?

Answer 8

this means that if the defendant is intoxicated when he does the relevant actus reus he is considered as doing it recklessly

Question 9

In what case did the HOL state that defendants who are intoxicated when they do the relevant actus reus are considered as doing it recklessly?

Answer 9

DPP v Majewski 1976

Question 10

What happened in the case of DPP v Majewski 1976?

Answer 10

D had taken drink and drugs, attacked the landlord of a pub and police officers. Law Lords held that becoming intoxicated was a reckless course of conduct and is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea

Question 11

D had taken drink and drugs, attacked the landlord of a pub and police officers. Law Lords held that becoming intoxicated was a reckless course of conduct and is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea
What case is this?

Answer 11

DPP v Majewski 1976

Question 12

Why can the ruling in DPP v Majewski 1976 be criticised?

Law Lords held that becoming intoxicated was a reckless course of conduct and is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea

Answer 12

AS the point at which the drink and drugs are taken is a seperate time to the point the actus reus is committed, and it would be more reasonable to say that the defendant is reckless when he takes drink or drugs, but this does not necessarily mean that when he commits an assault or battery that he is reckless for the purposes of the offence

Question 13

Where is the lowest level of injury, ‘actual bodily harm’ referred to?

Answer 13

s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Question 14

Within s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 what is not included? (3)

Answer 14

the definition of assault or ABH, or mentioned of level of mens rea required

Question 15

What is the deffiniton of assault occasioning ABH?

Answer 15

An assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm, with the intention to cause the victim to fear unlawful force, or to subject unlawful force, or to be subjectively reckless as to whether the victim fears or is subjected to unlawful force

Question 16

In which case was it said that ABH is ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim?

Answer 16

Miller 1954

Question 17

What in T V DPP 2003 were held to be actual bodily harm?

Answer 17

-loss of consciousness, even momentarily

Question 18

What happened in the case of T V DPP 2003?

Answer 18

D and a group of youths chased V. D kicked V. V was momentarily unconscious and remembered nothing until being woken by a police officer. D convicted of assault occasioning ABH

Question 19

D and a group of youths chased V. D kicked V. V was momentarily unconscious and remembered nothing until being woken by a police officer. D convicted of assault occasioning ABH
What case is this?

Answer 19

T v DPP 2003