Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Law: Unit 2 > Module 12 - Non-fatal offences against the person > Flashcards

Module 12 - Non-fatal offences against the person Flashcards

1
Q

What are the six different types of non-fatal offences against the person?

A

Assault
Battery
Common assault
ABH
GBH
GBH with intent

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

Where are the six different types of non-fatal offences against the person found in the law?

A

Assault and battery, and common assault (common law offences)
> Common assault is referenced to in the s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

ABH (s.47 OAPA 1861)
GBH (s.20 OAPA 1861)
GBH with intent (s.18 OAPA 1861)

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

What is assault?

A

Putting a person in fear of immediate unlawful violence.

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

What is battery?

A

The unlawful application of force on another person.

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

What are the usual sentences for assault and battery (maximum sentencing powers available)?

A

Sentence for assault and battery varies depending on the seriousness of the crime and the circumstances of the offence and offer; assault and battery go up to six months imprisonment and a £5,000 fine

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

What happened in Smith v Chief Superintendent (1983), in relation to assault?

A

Ruled on the basis that V did not know what D was going to do next

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

What is an omission?

A

Failure to act when under a legal duty to do so, which in certain circumstances can amount to a crime.

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

What is the relation between assault and omissions?

A

An omission can amount to assault only if D is under a duty to act

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

In which case was there an omission leading to an assault?

A

DPP v Santana

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

What was the legal outcome in DPP v Santana?

A

D failed to disclose a needle in his pocket, with the police officer injuring himself - the court held that failure to tell the officer amounted to the actus reus of assault causing ABH

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

What was the legal outcome in R v Ireland (1997)?

A

Silence can amount to an assault.

> Lords used a metaphor and argued a man saying to a woman in a dark alley to come with them, or else they would harm them, would constitute an assault

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

What was the legal outcome in R v Constanza (1997)?

A

Letters can count as assault (800 letters and numerous phone calls were made to the victim)

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

What does actus reus mean?

A

The physical element of a crime, such as an act, omission, or a state of affairs.

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

What was the legal outcome in Collins v Wilcock (1984)?

A

Touching a person to get their attention is acceptable - physical restraints are not (even the slightest touch can get battery)

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

What was the legal outcome in R v Thomas (1985)?

A

Even touching V’s clothing can be a form of battery

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

What is a continuing act?

A

An act that begins without mens rea but becomes criminal when the defendant subsequently forms the necessary mens rea.

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

What was the legal outcome in Fagan v Metropolitan (1968)?

A

D drove on a police officer’s foot; once D appreciated such was the fact, he refused to move the car, coinciding actus reus with mens rea

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

What is an indirect act?

A

A criminal act that affects the victim indirectly, such as setting a trap that causes harm.

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

What was the legal outcome in R v Martin (1881)?

A

A battery can be through an indirect act (i.e. a booby trap)

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

What was the legal outcome in Haystead (2000)?

A

D caused a small child to fall to the floor by punching the mother (battery via transferred intent)

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

What is the law for battery on unlawful force, when it is applied, when V consents, and when V is hit from behind?

A

For a battery to be committed the force must be unlawful
> If V gives genuine consent, then the force may be lawful.
> If V is hit from behind, there is no assault (no fear), but there is a battery

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

For both assault and battery, what is needed for the actus reus and mens rea?

A

The AR and MR must coincide for the crime to be complete (i.e. in Fagan)

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

What is basic intent?

A

Crimes that can be committed with recklessness as to the consequences.

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

What is specific intent?

A

Crimes requiring proof that the defendant intended a particular consequence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
What type of intent is assault and battery?
Assault and battery are classed as offences of basic intent > Offences like murder are specific intent offences
26
If D is intoxicated when committing the AR for assault or battery, what is it considered, and what case is related to this?
- If intoxicated when D commits the AR, it is considered as reckless … DPP v Majewski (1976)
27
What was the legal outcome in DPP v Majewski (1976)?
Being intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct, and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea in assault cases.
28
What is common assault?
A term covering both assault (causing fear of violence) and battery (physical force).
29
What are some issues with assault, battery and common assault, in terms of the terminology used?
Common assault, assault and battery are often used interchangeably by laymen and even possibly lawyers > Terminology has evolved significantly since 1861, and the law has not accounted for 150 years of language evolution.
30
What are some issues with assault, battery and common assault, in terms of inconsistencies in the law?
s.39 of the CJA 1988 refers to common assault and battery as two separate offences, however, later in the same Act, they are referenced to as one offence. - In Lynsey, it was held that common assault included battery; however, in Ireland and Burstow, it was held that the term ‘assault’ in s.47 OAPA included both common assault and battery (as separate offences) - in practice, there are two different offences (assault and battery)
31
What is ABH?
Actual bodily harm; any assault or battery causing harm that is more than merely transient or trifling.
32
Where is ABH found?
s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
33
What does s.47 of OAPA 1861 state about ABH?
s.47 of OAPA 1861 provides that it is an offence to commit ‘any assault occasioning actual bodily harm’ > ABH is essentially common assault with further harm
34
What do the terms 'assault' and 'occasioning' mean in s.47 OAPA 1861?
> Term ‘assault’ covers all types of assault (common, battery, etc.) > Term ‘occasioning’ = causing
35
What does occasioning mean?
Causing harm in a legal context, often referring to the requirement of causation in ABH.
36
What was the legal outcome of Donovan (1934)?
ABH is ‘harm that is more than merely transient or trifling’; this is very vague
37
What was the legal outcome of Miller (1954)?
ABH is any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim.
38
What was the legal outcome of DPP (2003)?
Loss of consciousness, even momentarily, was held to be ABH
39
What was the legal outcome of Roberts (1971)?
D committed a battery by interfering with V’s clothing; she jumped out of the moving vehicle to avoid this, with the court holding that D caused the injuries.
40
What issues arise for assault over causation?
In terms of assault, it can be much more tricky; issues arise over psychological injuries, and injuries caused while escaping…
41
What was the legal outcome in Lewis (1970)?
V jumped out of a window to escape D, her husband, who was breaking down the bedroom door to likely come and beat her. His crime was breaking down the door, which caused V to apprehend immediate unlawful violence (section 20 conviction)
42
What is the mens rea for ABH, as defined in the s.47 OAPA 1861?
D must have intention, or be reckless, as to whether V fears or is subjected to unlawful force.
43
What is intention?
A defendant’s aim or purpose is to bring about a criminal consequence.
44
What is recklessness?
Taking an unjustified risk where the defendant foresees the possibility of harm but continues with their actions.
45
What was the legal outcome in Savage (1991)?
A woman threw a beer over another woman, striking a third woman, cutting her; although D had not intended to hurt V, the Lords upheld her conviction as she intended to apply unlawful force and this was sufficient mens rea (transferred intent)
46
What is GBH?
Grievous bodily harm; serious injuries, including psychiatric harm, that can be inflicted or caused by an unlawful act.
47
Where is GBH found in the law?
s.20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861
48
How does s.20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861 define GBH?
Unlawful and malicious infliction of GBH upon a person
49
What does malicious mean?
Acting with recklessness or intention to cause harm.
50
What does inflict mean?
To cause harm, particularly in relation to GBH under s.20 OAPA 1861.
51
What is the actus reus for s.20 GBH?
AR = D must ‘wound or inflict grievous bodily harm’ - wound = breaking both layers of the skin - inflict = damage done but no wound - i.e. broken bones
52
What does wound mean?
A break in the continuity of both layers of the skin.
53
What was the legal outcome of R v Wood (1830)?
Held that breaking a collarbone was not wounding (skin was intact). The defendant broke victims' collar bone but he wasn't guilty of wounding
54
What was the legal outcome of JCC v Eisenhower (1983)?
JCC v Eisenhower defines wounding as the breaking of both layers of the external skin. D was not guilty of GBH, as there was not a break in both layers of the skin.
55
What was the legal outcome of DPP v Smith (1961)?
It was held that GBH means “really serious harm”
56
What was the legal outcome of R v Saunders (1985)?
Harm does not have to be life threatening
57
What was the legal outcome of R v Burstow (1997)?
V of a stalker (D) suffered a severe depressive illness as a result of D’s conduct; decided a serious psychiatric injury can be GBH
58
What was the legal outcome of R v Dica (2003)?
D had unprotected sex with two others and did not disclose his HIV; both subsequently were infected; first ever conviction for causing GBH through infecting the victim with HIV
59
What is the mens rea required for s.20 GBH?
D must have intention or recklessness as to the wound/infliction - Intention or recklessly wounding or inflicting of GBH > s.20 is reckless GBH; intention does not imply intent to cause GBH, instead implying intent to harm or perform the desired act; intent to cause GBH would be s.18 (GBH with intent)
60
What was the legal outcome of Bollom (2004)?
Injuries should be assessed according to V’s age and health (circumstantial - “take your victim as you find them”)
61
What was the legal outcome of Parmenter (1991)?
No need to foresee harm or the consequential level of injury (no intention is needed - if reckless, there can be a charge)
62
What is the Cunningham test?
Requires that D foresees a risk that his conduct will cause the prohibited consequence. Either an intention to cause harm (i.e. GBH) or recklessness as to whether such harm would occur. > Similar to Nedrick (did D foresee a risk?)
63
Where is GBH with intent found in the law?
s.18 Offences Against The Person Act 1861
64
How does s.18 Offences Against The Person Act 1861 define GBH with intent?
“Unlawful and malicious infliction of GBH upon a person, with intent to do some GBH”
65
What is GBH with intent also referred to as?
‘wounding with intent’
65
What are the sentencing powers available for GBH with intent (s.18), and what type of offense is it?
Considered a much more serious offence than s.20 (s.20 max sentence is five years, s.18 max sentence is life); massive jump in sentencing powers (ABH and GBH both have a maximum of five years - no differentiation in power despite severity differential) > s.18 is an indictable offence
66
What are indictable offences?
A serious criminal offense that can only be tried in the Crown Court, where the charges are laid out on an indictment, and the case is decided by a jury.
67
What is the actus reus for s.18 GBH with intent?
1. Wounding 2. Causing GBH - Meaning of wound and GBH are the same as for s.20 GBH - Word ‘cause’ is very wide; necessary to prove D’s act was a substantial cause of the wound or GBH
68
What is the mens rea for s.18 GBH with intent?
D must (maliciously) do some GBH/wounding > OR maliciously resist or ‘intend to prevent the lawful apprehension or detaining of any person..’ (i.e. a police officer)
69
What has been ruled about the word 'maliciously' in s.18 OAPA 1861?
Although the world ‘maliciously’ appears in s.18, it has been held this adds nothing to the mens rea; the important point is that s.18 is a specific intent crime, meaning intention must be proved - recklessness is not enough for the mens rea (otherwise, would be s.20)
70
What is the relation between intention and foresight of consequences, and s.18 GBH with intent?
Intention has the same meaning as shown in leading cases on murder - as decided in Moloney (1985), foresight of consequences is not intention; it is only evidence of which intention can be inferred/found.
71
What is foresight of consequences?
Considering whether the defendant foresaw the likely consequences of their actions.
72
What did Nedrick and Woollin establish surrounding intention?
Intention cannot be found ‘unless the harm caused was a virtual certainty as a result of D’s actions and D realised this was so’
73
What do the prosecution have to prove in terms of resisting arrest for s.18 GBH with intent?
Whether D is trying to resist or prevent arrest or detention, then the level of intention regarding the injury is lower > Prosecution must prove D had specific intention to resist or prevent arrest, but as so far as to the injury, they must only prove that he was reckless as to whether his actions would cause a wound or injury.
74
What was the legal outcome of Morrison (1989)?
A police officer seized hold of D and told him that she was arresting him. D divided through a window, dragging her with him, cutting her face badly. D was guilty of s.18, and the prosecution had to prove D had a ‘direct intention to cause GBH or a wound’ OR ‘indirect intention to cause GBH or a wound as per R v Belfon (1976)’

Law: Unit 2 (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions