Important cases : Non fatal offences Flashcards
R v Ireland
telephone calls can be harassment
R V Constanza
written word can be assault
R v Lamb
threat must be immediate
Smith v Superintendent of police station
immediate does not need to mean instantaneous
Tuberville v Savage
words that state that assault is not imminent can make the situation not assault but contrast R v Light.
Mens rea : DPP v Majewski:
if drunk you are reckless and therefore liable.
Battery : Haystead v DPP
Force does not need to be directly applied - D hit person carrying baby, baby fell over, D guilty of battery to baby
Battery: Fagan v MPC
actus reus can be ongoing event
Battery: Collins v Wilcock
slightest contact gives rise to battery
Battery: DPP v K
battery can be committed by an indirect act
Battery: DPP v Santa-Bermudez
omissions can give rise to battery (needle in pocket case)
ABH: R v Miller
bruises and scratches amount to ABH.
ABH: R v DPP
threshold for ABH relatively low.
ABH: DPP v Smith
cutting off substantial amount of hair is ABH
ABH: T v DPP
being knocked out momentarily is ABH
ABH: R v Chan-Fook
minor psychological injury is ABH.
ABH: R v Roberts
tried to take woman’s coat off when in car, woman apprehended a more serious assault and jumped out of car, suffered injuries. D was held liable for ABH
ABH: R v Brown and Stratton
knocked out teeth, concussion, swelling to face, lacerations individually ABH but in total are GBH
GBH: JJC v Eisenhower
Wound: cut or break in the skin - 2 layers.
GBH: R v Wood
(broken bone) not wounds
GBH: DPP v Smith.
GBH means really serious harm.
GBH: R v Bollom
bruising can be GBH.
GBH: R v Dica
infecting with AIDS due to sexual contact is GBH.
GBH: R v Burstow
Can be psychiatric
Actus reus: Pagett
“but for” - factual causation
Actus reus: R V Hughes
“de minis” - factual causation
Actus reus: R v Blaue
thin skull rule - legal causation
Actus reus: R v Pagett
Novus actus interveniens - legal causation
Actus reus: Kimsey
substantive and operative cause - legal causation
Actus reus: R v Smith
poor medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation
Actus reus: R v Jordan
poor medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless error totally unrelated to injury
Actus reus: R v Blaue
Rejecting medical treatment not novus actus
Actus reus: R v Roberts & R v Marjoram
Victim’s own act: if foreseeable, not Novus actus
Actus reus: Roberts, Williams
victim’s own act can break chain of causation
R v Mohan
Direct intent :a decision to bring about, so far as it lies within the accused’s power (the prohibited consequence) , no matter whether the accused desired the consequence of the act or not.
Woollin
oblique intent: Death or serious harm is a virtual certainty as result of D’s actions
The D appreciated that such was the case
Matthews v Alleyne
Woollin test example
Cunningham
Recklessness: D must intend the consequence or realise there is a risk of the consequence happening And decide to take that risk
Pembliton
Mens rea can’t transfer between person and object
Latimer
transferred malice
Thabo Meli, Church, but consider Fagan
Actus reus and Mens rea need to happen at the same time
