NFO's key cases Flashcards
ratio of Constanza in relation to assault
Words alone can amount to an assault
ratio of Ireland in relation to assault
Silence can amount to an assault
ratio of Tuberville v savage in relation to assault
Words can negate an assault
ratio of Smith v Woking in relation to assault
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
ratio of logdon in relation to assault
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.
ratio of mohan in relation to assault
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.
ratio of Cunningham in relation to assault
subjective recklessness is that D foresaw the risk and went ahead with it anyway
ratio of collins v willcock in relation to battery
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
ratio of faulkner v talbot in relation to battery
“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.
ratio of Thomas in relation to battery
the slightest touch constitutes a battery even if no application of ‘force’ occurred.
ratio of DPP v Khan in relation to battery
this amounted to a battery as there was indirect force applied.
ratio of chan-fook in relation to s47 / abh
the word ‘actual’ indicates that the injury should: “…not be so trivial as to be insignificant”
ratio of T v DPP in relation to s47 / abh
momentary unconsciousness = abh
ratio of Smith in relation to s47 / abh
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
ratio of R v D in relation to s47 / abh
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.
ratio of Savage in relation to s47 / abh
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
ratio of Martin in relation to s20/ GBH
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.
ratio of Burstow in relation to s20/ GBH
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
ratio of saunders in relation to s20/ GBH
GBH means “serious harm”
ratio of Brown and stratton in relation to s20/ GBH
the injuries of a broken nose, three missing teeth, bruising, laceration over one eye and concussion amounted (in combination) to GBH
ratio of Bollom in relation to s20/ GBH
the severity if the injuries should be assessed according to the victim’s age and health
ratio of Dica in relation to s20/ GBH
a person could be liable under s20 for recklessly infecting another person with HIV- biological harm can amount to a GBH
ratio of Eisenhower in relation to s20/ GBH
the injury wasn’t sufficient to constitute a wounding as both layers of the skin hadn’t been broken
ratio of mowatt in relation to s20/ GBH
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
ratio of Belfon in relation to s18
he had forseen the risk but it hadn’t been proved he had specific intent required for s18
ratio of Taylor in relation to s18
intention to wound wasn’t sufficient for the MR of s18
ratio of woolin in relation to s18
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.
