NFO's key cases

Question 1

ratio of Constanza in relation to assault

Answer 1

Words alone can amount to an assault

Question 2

ratio of Ireland in relation to assault

Answer 2

Silence can amount to an assault

Question 3

ratio of Tuberville v savage in relation to assault

Answer 3

Words can negate an assault

Question 4

ratio of Smith v Woking in relation to assault

Answer 4

Even though the window was closed the V still had immediate fear of what might occur next. V fearing physical attacks in the imminent future was enough

Question 5

ratio of logdon in relation to assault

Answer 5

V had feared immediate use of unlawful physical force/ violence and D had been at least reckless as to whether this would occur it was enough that V had reasonable cause to fear that force.

Question 6

ratio of mohan in relation to assault

Answer 6

intention is a decision to bring about in so far as it lies within the accuseds power (the prohibited consequence) no matter whether D desired the consequence of his act or not so it was his main aim or purpose.

Question 7

ratio of Cunningham in relation to assault

Answer 7

subjective recklessness is that D foresaw the risk and went ahead with it anyway

Question 8

ratio of collins v willcock in relation to battery

Answer 8

while in law any unlawful teaching could amount to a battery everyday allowances fir the exigencies of everyday life had to be made No harm or pain needed

Question 9

ratio of faulkner v talbot in relation to battery

Answer 9

“Force” is misleading as any unlawful physical contact can amount to a battery; there is no need to prove harm or pain, and a mere touch can be sufficient.

Question 10

ratio of Thomas in relation to battery

Answer 10

the slightest touch constitutes a battery even if no application of ‘force’ occurred.

Question 11

ratio of DPP v Khan in relation to battery

Answer 11

this amounted to a battery as there was indirect force applied.

Question 12

ratio of chan-fook in relation to s47 / abh

Answer 12

the word ‘actual’ indicates that the injury should: “…not be so trivial as to be insignificant”

Question 13

ratio of T v DPP in relation to s47 / abh

Answer 13

momentary unconsciousness = abh

Question 14

ratio of Smith in relation to s47 / abh

Answer 14

ABH extends to hurt and damage so long as it is not trivial it applies to all body parts including hair harm doesn’t mean pain

Question 15

ratio of R v D in relation to s47 / abh

Answer 15

actual bodily harm is capable of including psychiatric injury, but is didn’t include mere emotions, nor did it include, as such, states of mind that were not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition.

Question 16

ratio of Savage in relation to s47 / abh

Answer 16

D had intended to apply unlawful force when throwing the drink so there isn’t need to prove she intended or was reckless as to whether causing some harm when the glass slipped

Question 17

ratio of Martin in relation to s20/ GBH

Answer 17

although D had no specific victims in mind to target by blocking the fire exit as a theatre and then shouting fire the D had indirect application of force.

Question 18

ratio of Burstow in relation to s20/ GBH

Answer 18

s20 can be committed where no physical force has been applied (directly/indirectly) on the body of the victim GBH can be inflicted in the form of psychiatric damage and no physical harm need occur. when the V suffered psychiatric damage and no physical harm need occur. when the V suffered signs of clinical depression it was enough to constitute for s20

Question 19

ratio of saunders in relation to s20/ GBH

Answer 19

GBH means “serious harm”

Question 20

ratio of Brown and stratton in relation to s20/ GBH

Answer 20

the injuries of a broken nose, three missing teeth, bruising, laceration over one eye and concussion amounted (in combination) to GBH

Question 21

ratio of Bollom in relation to s20/ GBH

Answer 21

the severity if the injuries should be assessed according to the victim’s age and health

Question 22

ratio of Dica in relation to s20/ GBH

Answer 22

a person could be liable under s20 for recklessly infecting another person with HIV- biological harm can amount to a GBH

Question 23

ratio of Eisenhower in relation to s20/ GBH

Answer 23

the injury wasn’t sufficient to constitute a wounding as both layers of the skin hadn’t been broken

Question 24

ratio of mowatt in relation to s20/ GBH

Answer 24

no need to intend or be reckless as to causing the actual wounding/ GBH -it is enough to have foreseen some physical harm to the V albeit of a minor character

Question 25

ratio of Belfon in relation to s18

Answer 25

he had forseen the risk but it hadn’t been proved he had specific intent required for s18

Question 26

ratio of Taylor in relation to s18

Answer 26

intention to wound wasn’t sufficient for the MR of s18

Question 27

ratio of woolin in relation to s18

Answer 27

the court will infer intention if: the consequence is a virtually certain result if the act AND D knows that it is a virtual certain consequence.