Non Fatal Offences Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is s 18 of the OAPA 1861?

A

`Grievous bodily harm with intent

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

What is s 20 of OAPA 1861?

A

Grievous Bodily Harm

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

What is s 47 of OAPA 1861?

A

Actual bodily harm

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

What is under Common Assault in OAPA 1861?

A

Assault and Battery

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

What cases show that assault is ‘causing fear’ in any way through DOING SOMETHING?

A

Nelson (2013) - assault has to be physically done (not touching though)
Costanza (1997) - letters can be assault
Ireland (1997) - silent phonecalls could be assault
Lamb (1967) - pointing an unloaded gun is only assault if they believe that it is loaded (MR)
DPP v K (1990) - an indirect act can still be battery (e.g. setting a trap)

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

Which cases show that battery is the application of unlawful force to another either through intention or recklessness?

A

Thomas (1985) - touching clothes is ‘unlawful force’

Collins v Wilcock (1984) & Wood v DPP (2008) are other battery examples

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

In waht case was an omission enough to prosecute under OAPA 1861?

A

Santa-Bermudez (2003) - by failing to warn an officer that they had needles in their pocket, this led to assault causing bodily harm through omission

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

The use of force does not mean battery if…

A
  • the victim gives genuine consent
  • in self defense
  • prevention of a crime
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are the max sentences of ABH and GBH?

A

Both 5 years

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

Cases to demonstrate ABH

A
T (2003) - simple outline of ABH
Smith (2006) - physical pain doesn't have to be a ingredient of ABH (cutting hair could be too)
Chan Fook (1994) - Psychiatric injury can also be ABH
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What cases show that the mens rea that is required for ABH is the same as common assault?

A

Roberts (1971)

Savage (1991)

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

Cases on what a ‘wound’ is for GBH

A

Bollom (2004) - significant bruising could be enough
Burstow (1997) - serious psychiatric injury can be GBH
Dica (2004) - infecting people with HIV without them knowing is GBH

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

What did the House of Lords decide in Parmenter (1991) about the mens rea of s 20 (GBH)?

A

Although the actus reus of s 20 requires a wound or GBH there is no need for D to foresee this level of serious injury

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

Mens rea for s 20 vs Mens rea for s 18

A

s 20 it’s intention or subjective recklessness as to causing some injury (parmenter)

s 18 it’s Specific intention to cause GBH or specific intention to RESIST ARREST plus recklessness as to causing injury (Morrison 1989)

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

definition of ‘actual bodily harm’

A

any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort

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

What are the four key needs for reform of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?

A
  • it is out of date
  • there are inconsistencies between different offences
  • there is no conformity in the correspondence principle (this principle states that the results which D intend or foresee should match the results)
  • much of the language used in the act is archaic
17
Q

What points should be discussed when using the criticism that the OAPA 1861 is OUT OF DATE?

A
  • it is 150 years old:

when it was made people didn’t have an understanding of things like mental harm (Chan Fook and Burstow) so it isn’t covered

the idea of infecting someone with a disease wasn’t thought of as well (Dica)

COURTS ARE CONSTANTLY HAVING TO FILL IN GAPS

18
Q

What points should be discussed when using the OAPA criticism of INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN OFFENCES?

A
  • inconsistencies in the mens rea required for each offence (e.g. the mens rea for s 47 is the same as common assault, but the differences in their max sentences are massive: 5 years vs 6 months
  • s 20 and s 47 have the same maximum sentence even though they carry different levels of blameworthiness
  • GBH can be a simple cut (an injury under s 47 could be worse than s 20)
  • the s 20 rule of ‘resisting arrest’ shouldn’t be on the same level as someone who intended to cause someone GBH and did.
19
Q

What points should be discussed when considering the CORRESPONDENCE PRINCIPLE criticism of OAPA 1861?

A
  • D should not be held liable for a given level of harm unless he meant to do it or knowingly ran the risk of it
  • a D can be guilty of a s 20 or s 47 offence without intending or being reckless

these are clear breaches of the correspondence principle

20
Q

What points should be discussed when using the criticism that LANGUAGE USED IN OAPA 1861 is ARCHAIC?

A
  • s 20 uses the word ‘maliciously’ which suggests acting deliberately with ill will to V. However, in 1861 it meant that D either intended to do the type of harm or was reckless as to whether that type of harm occurred (Cunningham 1957)
  • the Act is also inconsistent in wording:

'’inflict’ and ‘cause’ were used interchangeably in different sections which led to a debate whether ‘inflict’ in s 20 meant technical assault had to take place (solved in Burstow)

21
Q

What evident changes did the Law Commission suggest in their Report 2015?

A
  • added ‘aggravated assault’ which is the same as s 47 or “Clause 3” but the mens rea is ‘intentionally or recklessly causing COMMON ASSAULT’ rather than INJURY
  • they called ‘battery’ “physical assault” and ‘assault’ “threatened assault” which makes their required actus reus much clearer as assault is commonly seen as physical nowadays.
  • max sentences changed:
Clause 1 (s 18) - life
Clause 2 (s 20)  - 7 yrs
Clause 3 (s 47) - 5 yrs
22
Q

What reforms did the Home Office suggest for OAPA 1861 in the 1998 draft bill?

A
  • set out four main offences
  • the level of injury and required mens rea are made clear by the wording. The word ‘injury’ is made clear to mean both physical and mental