L6: Assault Occasioning ABH

Question 1

Diff between ABH/Battery

Answer 1

The level of harm caused is a useful means of deciding whether the defendant has committed a battery or ABH.

Battery includes:
Scratches
Minor Bruising
Cuttijg off a small peice of hair
Superficial Cuts

ABH includes:
Temporary loss of sensory functions
Extensive or multiple bruisimg
Cutting of ponytail (DPP v Smith (2006)
Minor cuts which require stiching

Question 2

AR/MR of ABH

Answer 2

AR- The defendant commits an assault or battery causing the victim to suffer ABH
MR- The defendant intended or was reckless as to the assault or battery

Question 3

AR Elements

Answer 3

1. Defendant committed an assault or battery- Both the AR/MR of assault or battery must be established
2. Victim must suffer ABH- In Donovan (1934), ABH was defined as “any hurt or injury interfering with health or comfort of the V.
3. The ABH must’ve been occasioned by assault or battery of the defendant- The word “occasioned” has been interpreted as meaning the same as “caused”.
   R v Roberts (1972)

Question 4

Chan-Fook case (1994)

Answer 4

Harm should not be so trivial as to wholly signficant

Question 5

Donovan (1934)

Answer 5

The injuries must be “more than merely transient or trifling”

Question 6

Pyschiatric Harm

Answer 6

-Recognisable pyschiatric illness/injury is capable of amounting to ABH (Chan-Fook(1994))
- Pyschiatric injury is a matter of expert evidence (R v Irelandn(1998))
- Expert evidence must be given by a pyschiatrist (R v Morris (1998))

Question 7

MR Element of ABH

Answer 7

The defendan intended or was reckless as to the assault or battery

The mens rea of ABH is an intention or recklessness as to the assault or battery. There’s no requirement that the defendant intended to cause ABH or that he foresaw a risk that ABH would occur as a result of his actions.

Key Case- R v Savage & Parmenter (1992)

Question 8

Contemporaneity Rule

Answer 8

Coincidence of AR/MR-General Rule: The actus reus and the men’s rea must be contemporaneous (i.e. coincide in time)

Question 9

Exceptions to the Coincidence Requirement

Answer 9

1. The D commited the AR at one point in time (without the necessary men’s rea), but at a later point in time he has the men’s rea
   Key Case- Miller/ Fagan v Metro Police Comissioner
2. The defendant has the mens rea at one point in time and then later performs the AR
   Key Case: Thabo-Meli v R (1954)
3. It is unclear when the AR occured
   Key Case: Attorney Gen Ref (No.4 of (1980) (1981)