Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A-Levels > Law-Non-Fatal Offences (AS) > Flashcards

Law-Non-Fatal Offences (AS) Flashcards

1
Q

What are five non-fatal offences?

A

Assault, battery, assault occasioning in actual bodily harm, inflicting grievous bodily harm or wounding, inflicting grievous bodily harm or wounding with intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What does it mean that assault and battery are common law offences?

A

Each of the offences is defined through decided cases only, and has no statutory definition, whereas the other three are set out in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are assault and battery called together?

A

Common assault (common because the definitions come from common law)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What does the criminal justice act 1988 s39 say about assault and battery?

A

Doesn’t define them, it just states the maximum sentence (6months) and establishes that the offences are summary offences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are summary offences?

A

Can only be tried in Magistrates’ court, and shows assault and battery are the least serious of the non fatal offences against the person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the essential distinction between assault and battery?

A

Assault is about fear of suffering harm, whereas battery is the actual harm, therefore someone who is asleep can’t suffer assault, but can suffer battery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What do assault and battery both require?

A

Actus reus and mens rea, and it is essential to be able to explain them both accurately

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Where is assault occasioning actual bodily harm found?

A

Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (least serious offence but has the most convictions)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the maximum sentence under s47 and s20?

A

Five years imprisonment, giving the court scope to chose a suitable level of punishment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Where is inflicting grievous bodily harm or wounding found + with intent?

A

Section 20 of the offences against the person act 1861, and with intent it is in section 18

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the actus reus of assault?

A

Any act that causes the victim to apprehend an immediate infliction of unlawful violence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What are examples of assault?

A

Aiming a gun at someone, or waving a fist in an aggressive manner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What did the house of lords in Savage 1991 state that mens rea is for assault?

A

An intention to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence or recklessness whether such as apprehension be caused

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What are the three elements of the actus reus?

A

Causing the victim to apprehend violence, immediate violence, and unlawful violence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is required for the first element (Causing the victim to apprehend violence)?

A

No need for any physical contact between the defendant and victim. Emphasis is on what the victim thought was about to happen, so even if the threat was meant as a joke, assault is committed if the victim is sufficiently frightened

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is a case example for this?

A

Logdon 1976

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What happened in Logdon 1976?

A

Defendant, as a joke, pointed a gun at the victim, who was terrified until she was told that it was a replica. Court held that the victim had apprehended immediate physical violence, and the defendant had been at least reckless as to whether this would occur

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is a case example for where no words, only actions resulted in assault?

A

Smith v Chief Superintendent of Working Police Station 1983

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What happened in Smith v Chief Superintendent of Working Police Station 1983?

A

Victim was at home in her ground floor flat, dressed in her nightdress. She was terrified when suddenly saw the defendant in her garden staring at her through her window. Court held him liable for assault, on grounds that the victim feared immediate violence, even though he couldn’t physically attack her, as she was locked in

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is a case example of assault caused by silence?

A

Ireland 1997

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What happened in Ireland 1997?

A

Making of silent telephone calls hat caused psychiatric injury to the victim was capable of amounting to an assault in law, where the calls caused the victim to apprehend an immediate application of force. It is consistent with law developed to deal with stalkers prior to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

How can the second element of actus reus (immediate violence) be shown?

A

Smith v Chief Superintendent of Working Police Station 1983, where the immediacy arose as the vicim was behind glass, even though he didn’t have immediate access to her and in Ireland 1997 the immediacy is that the verbal contact made by the defendant with the victim caused the fear

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Why could the victim be held to fear ‘immediate’ unlawful personal violence in Ireland?

A

Because she couldn’t know exactly where the defendant was when making the calls, so couldn’t rule out the possibility that he could get to her in a very short time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Why does the third element of actus reus exist (unlawful violence)?

A

Eg so it isn’t a criminal offence for a policeman to threaten to handcuff someone or restrain them if they don’t co-operate during arrest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What does ‘intention to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence or recklessness whether such as apprehension be caused’ mean?

A

Direct or oblique intention as to causing immediate, unlawful fear in the victim that he or she might suffer harm, or subjective recklessness as to causing immediate, unlawful fear in the victim that he or she may suffer harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What is the actus reus of battery?

A

The unlawful application of force to another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What sort of force is needed for the actus reus of battery?

A

It can be very slight, and suggested that even just touching a person’s clothes may be sufficient, though typical examples are hitting someone or throwing a drink at someone

28
Q

What is a case example of battery?

A

Thomas 1985

29
Q

What happened in Thomas 1985?

A

School caretaker was charged with indecent assault after taking hold of the hem of a 12 year old girls skirt. The act wasn’t indecent as there was no evidence of circumstances making it so, but the court said there was no dispute that if you touch a persons clothes while they are wearing them, it is the equivalent of touching them

30
Q

How does consent affect battery?

A

It can make touch unlawful. There is implied consent in normal social situations, such as tapping someone’s shoulder to get their attention, or touch in sporting activity, though no consent when touch goes beyond the rules of the sport

31
Q

Can battery be committed by omission?

A

It can be applied only by an act, not an omission, which is why Fagan v MPC 1969 was considered a continuing act

32
Q

What is a case example for indirect force (battery)?

A

Haystead 2000, where the defendant punched his girlfriend, causing her to drop her baby on the floor, and he was then convicted of battery on the baby

33
Q

What case stated the mens rea of battery?

A

Venna 1976

34
Q

What does Venna state the mens rea of battery is?

A

“proof that the defendant intentionally or recklessly applied force to the person of another’ which is similar to mens rea of assault except for the intended or reckless consequence

35
Q

What happened in Venna 1976?

A

Defendant was arrested with friends for a public order offence. He struggled violently with the arresting officer, and was judged to be reckless as to whether he caused some harm to the officer

36
Q

What does section 47 of the offences against the person act 1861 state?

A

Whosoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding five years

37
Q

What sort of offence is ABH (assault occasioning actual bodily harm)?

A

Triable either way offence, so it can be tried in the Magistrates court or the Crown Court

38
Q

What are the three elements of actus reus for ABH?

A

1) Assault, 2) occasioning, 3) actual bodily harm

39
Q

Explain the first element of the actus reus for ABH?

A

Assault includes assault and battery. First essential part is to prove there was an assault or battery, which isn’t usually a problem, but can become one if the limitations on assault and battery aren’t taken into account

40
Q

Explain the second element of the actus reus for ABH?

A

Means brining about the consequence (causation). One of the distinctions between s47 and other offences under the act, is the degree of harm caused (vital aspect, but sometimes is very straightforward requiring no discussion eg if someone is hit with a stick and a bruise appears where they had been hit, there is no issue of causation?

41
Q

Explain the third element of actus reus for ABH?

A

Can be explained by the Chan-Fook case 1994 where court said ‘harm’ means ‘injury’, and that ‘actual’ indicates the injury shouldn’t be so trivial as to be ‘wholly insignificant’. It also isn’t limited to harm to the skin, flesh and bones. It includes organs, nervous system, brain and psychiatric injury, but not emotions or states of mind that aren’t evidence of an identifiable medial condition

42
Q

How did the Smith 2006 case change the scope of ABH?

A

It extended to include a person’s hair

43
Q

What happened in Smith 2006?

A

Defendant cut off his former partner’s pony tail with scissors. Court said ABH isn’t limited to injury, and extends to hurt and damage as long as it isn’t trivial and applies to all parts of the body, including hair

44
Q

What are the differences between battery, and s47 ABH?

A

Battery is the slightest of touching and ABH is where injury is more than trivial. This means bruising can fall within s47, but not s20 unless it is so severe as to be considered serious harm

45
Q

What was stated in Miller 1954?

A

Actual bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim

46
Q

What is the mens rea for ABH?

A

Intention or recklessness as to assault or battery, made clear in Roberts 1971

47
Q

What happened in Roberts 1971?

A

A girl, who was a passenger in the defendant’s car, injured herself jumping out of it whilst it was moving. Defendant had the mens rea to cause a battery as he injuries were a consequent of his unlawful act, so there was sufficient actus reus and mens rea for conviction under s47

48
Q

How is this also shown in Savage 1991?

A

Intention was throwing beer and was sufficient for battery. Result was more serious, factually and legally caused by the act of the defendant, so there is sufficient mens rea for the more serious offence under s47

49
Q

What does s20 of the offences against the person act 1861 state?

A

Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any person, wither with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of the offence

50
Q

What sort of offences are malicious wounding/GBH?

A

Triable either way (tried in magistrates or crown court)

51
Q

What determines whether an offence is malicious wounding or GBH?

A

The nature of the injuries to the victim

52
Q

What are the three words/expressions that need explanation for the actus reus?

A

1) unlawful, 2) wound, 3) grievous bodily harm

53
Q

Explain the first element of actus reus for malicious wounding/GBH?

A

Act must be unlawful, so in this context it usually means there was no consent, so it is subject to age restrictions set out by statue as it isn’t unlawful to have a tattoo or piercing. Issue is whether consent is genuine

54
Q

Explain the second element of actus reus for malicious wounding/GBH?

A

Requires the definition of wound. Wounding requires a break in the surface of the skin; both layers of the skin and so it is therefore seen as an open wound, usually with blood loss

55
Q

What is a case example for wounding?

A

JCC v Eisenhower 1984 where the victim was hit by an airgun pellet in the eye. He suffered bruising and internal bleeding in the eye. Court decided there was o wounding, as there was no wound breaking the skin. Though once the victim has bled, it will be a wound (not internal bleeding)

56
Q

Explain the third element of actus reus for malicious wounding/GHB?

A

Grievous bodily harm. Has been defined in various ways, such as ‘really serious’ harm. Meaning it is a phrase that should be given its ordinary and natural meaning in the circumstances of the case

57
Q

What happened in the case of Brown and Stratton 1998?

A

Victim was transsexual and went to the market stall where his father worked. The father felt humiliated to see his son as a woman and, along with his cousin, attacked the victim with a chair, causing a broken nose, three lost teeth and concussion. Together they were considered to be GBH

58
Q

What is the mens rea?

A

‘Maliciously’-Savage (1991) it was confirmed maliciously meant intentionally or recklessly

59
Q

What happened in Parmenter 1991?

A

(It went to appeal with Savage.) Defendant had caused injury to his young baby by throwing him about in a way which would have been acceptable with an older child, but not one so young. He didn’t realise he might cause harm by his action. HofL held he couldn’t be liable under s20 as he didn’t foresee the risk of harm (s20 doesn’t require foreseeability of GBH, but foreseeability of harm)

60
Q

What does section 18 of the offences against the person act 1861 state?

A

Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person

61
Q

What sort of offence is this?

A

Triable only on indictment, so will only be tried at crown court

62
Q

What is the actus reus?

A

Either wounding, or grievous bodily harm as set out in s20

63
Q

What is the mens rea?

A

That the defendant must be ‘malicious’ but in addition, it must be proved they had a further specific intent, it must be the defendants intention to do some grievous bodily harm to the victim

64
Q

What is a case example for this?

A

Belfon 1976

65
Q

What happened in Belfon 1976?

A

Defendant slashed victim with razor causing severe wounds o face and chest. Court said that in order to establish the offence under s18, the essential part was to prove intent. References to the defendant foreseeing that such harm was likely to result or that he had been reckless would be insufficient

66
Q

What is the conclusion for the non fatal offences?

A

All five have a number of overlapping essentials and a number of subtle differences. They provide a framework for defining different levels of seriousness of harm that can occur

A-Levels (89 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions