Non Fatal Cases Flashcards
Collins v Wilcock (1984) – What principle was established about battery?
This case clarified the definition of battery. A police officer grabbed a woman’s arm without arresting her. The court ruled this was an unlawful touching. Battery is the application of unlawful physical force on another person.
DPP v K (1990) – What counts as indirect battery?
A schoolboy put acid in a hand dryer which later burned another pupil. The court held this was battery by indirect force. Battery can be committed through indirect acts, not just physical contact.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) – How was battery applied?
Fagan accidentally drove onto a police officer’s foot and then refused to move. The act became battery when he formed the mens rea. This case established that battery can be a continuing act.
R v Thomas (1985) – What amounts to battery in school settings?
A caretaker touched a girl’s skirt. The court ruled that touching someone’s clothing while they are wearing it amounts to battery. Battery doesn’t require injury or visible harm.
R v Ireland (1997) – What did this case say about silent phone calls?
A man made repeated silent phone calls to women, causing them psychological harm. The court held this was assault. Assault includes causing fear of immediate unlawful violence, even through silence.
Tuberville v Savage (1669) – What limits the AR of assault?
The defendant placed his hand on his sword and said “If it were not assize time…” implying no violence. Words can negate an assault if they indicate no immediate threat.
Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) – What counts as fear of violence?
D stared at a woman through her window at night. She feared he would enter. The court held this was assault. Fear of imminent violence, even if not immediate entry, is enough.
DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003) – How can omission lead to battery?
A police officer asked if the defendant had any sharp objects before a search. He said no but had a needle in his pocket which injured the officer. Battery can arise from an omission where there is a duty to act.
R v Constanza (1997) – How do words amount to assault?
The defendant sent over 800 letters and made phone calls. The court held that words can amount to assault if they cause fear of violence. Written threats can constitute assault.
R v Roberts (1971) – How does this relate to ABH and causation?
D made unwanted sexual advances. The victim jumped out of a moving car and was injured. ABH was caused through assault; victims’ actions must be foreseeable to not break the chain.
R v Chan-Fook (1994) – What did it say about ABH and psychiatric injury?
The court ruled that actual bodily harm includes psychiatric injury, but not mere emotions like fear or panic. Recognised mental harm as ABH if clinically proven.
DPP v Smith (2006) – Does cutting hair count as ABH?
The defendant cut off his girlfriend’s ponytail. The court held this was ABH. ABH includes physical harm such as cutting hair if it affects the victim’s bodily integrity.
R v Savage (1992) – What mens rea is required for ABH?
D threw beer and the glass broke, cutting the victim. Even though she didn’t intend ABH, the assault led to it. Only intent or recklessness for assault/battery is required; no need to foresee ABH.
JJC v Eisenhower (1984) – What counts as GBH?
A boy was shot with a pellet gun; it ruptured blood vessels but did not break the skin. GBH (wounding) requires a break in both layers of the skin; internal bleeding alone isn’t enough.
R v Dica (2004) – How does biological transmission relate to GBH?
D knowingly infected partners with HIV. The court held this amounted to GBH. GBH can include serious biological harm like disease transmission.
R v Bollom (2003) – Can age and vulnerability affect GBH severity?
The victim was a 17-month-old baby with bruising. The court held injuries must be assessed considering age and health. What counts as GBH may differ based on the victim’s vulnerability.
R v Brown and Stratton (1997) – When is multiple injuries GBH?
Victim suffered multiple injuries including broken nose and lost teeth. The court held collectively this amounted to GBH. Combination of lesser injuries can amount to GBH.
R v Parmenter (1991) – What mens rea is required for s20 GBH?
A father injured his baby by rough handling but didn’t foresee harm. He was guilty under s47 but not s20. s20 GBH requires foresight of some harm – not necessarily serious harm.
R v Burstow (1997) – Can psychological injury amount to GBH?
The victim suffered severe depression from harassment. The court held psychiatric injury could be GBH. Serious psychological harm can be grievous bodily harm.
R v Taylor (2009) – What must be proven for s18 GBH?
V had scratches and a stab wound. The court said s18 requires specific intent to cause serious harm. Intent to wound is not enough; intent to cause serious harm is needed for s18.
R v Morrison (1989) – What is the mens rea for s18 when resisting arrest?
A police officer was injured while D tried to escape arrest. Recklessness is sufficient for the second part of s18 (resisting arrest).
