Non Fatal Offences

Question 1

Where are assault and battery defined?

Answer 1

In common law.

Question 2

What is the actus reus of assault?

Answer 2

Causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful force.

Question 3

Which case say that gestures and actions can be an assault?

Answer 3

Read v Coker.

Question 4

What does R v Ireland say?

Answer 4

Spoken words can be an assault.
Silence can be an assault.

Question 5

Which case says that written words can be assault?

Answer 5

R v Constanza.

Question 6

Which case says that a defendant’s words can negate an assault?

Answer 6

Tuberville v Savage.

Question 7

Which case is used to determine if V apprehended the use of force and what did it say? (Always use this case for assault)

Answer 7

DPP v Logdon.
It is possible for V to apprehend force even if the use of force is not possible (e.g. a fake gun).

Question 8

How did Smith v Chief Constable of Woking define immediate? (Always use this case for assault)

Answer 8

Straight away or in the near future

Question 9

What is the mens rea of assault?

Answer 9

Intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham) to cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful force.

Question 10

What is the actus reus of battery?

Answer 10

Applying unlawful force onto another person.

Question 11

What did R v Thomas say force can be? (Always use this case for battery)

Answer 11

Force can be the slightest touch.
Touching a person’s clothing is the same as touching a person.

Question 12

What is meant by unlawful force? (Always use this case for battery)

Answer 12

Wilson v Pringle says unlawful means hostile or unwanted and goes beyond the ordinary jostlings of everyday life. (No implied consent e.g. knocking into someone in the supermarket or on public transport).

Question 13

Which case said that force can be applied through a continuing act?

Answer 13

Fagan v MPC.

Question 14

What did DPP v K say?

Answer 14

Force can be applied indirectly through an object.

Question 15

Which case said that force can be applied through an omission where D has a duty to act but fails to do so?

Answer 15

DPP v Santana-Bermudez.

Question 16

What is the mens rea of battery?

Answer 16

Intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham) to apply unlawful force onto another person.

Question 17

Where is assault occasioning ABH defined?

Answer 17

Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Question 18

What is the actus reus of assault occasioning ABH?

Answer 18

Either an assault or a battery which causes ABH to another person.

Question 19

How does R v Miller define ABH?

Answer 19

Any hurt or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim.

Question 20

How does R v Chan Fook define ABH? (Always use this case for ABH)

Answer 20

Harm can’t be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant.
Psychiatric harm can be ABH.

Question 21

Which case said that cutting off a person’s hair can amount to ABH?

Answer 21

DPP v Smith.

Question 22

Which case said that even a very short loss of consciousness can be ABH?

Answer 22

T v DPP.

Question 23

What else do you need to explain for the actus reus of ABH?

Answer 23

Causation- factual and legal.

Question 24

What is the mens rea of assault occasioning ABH?

Answer 24

Same as for assault or battery so intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful force or intention or recklessness to apply unlawful force.

Question 25

What did R v Savage say?

Answer 25

D does not need to intend or be reckless as to cause ABH, they just need the mens rea for assault or battery.

Question 26

Does wounding have to be an assault or a battery?

Answer 26

No.

Question 27

Where is wounding defined?

Answer 27

Under section 18 (more serious) and section 20 (less serious) of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Question 28

What is the actus reus of wounding?

Answer 28

To unlawfully wound another person.

Question 29

Which case defined what a wound was and what was the definition?

Answer 29

JCC v Eisenhower- a wound is a cut or break in at least 2 layers of outer skin.

Question 30

What doesn’t count as a wound?

Answer 30

Internal bleeding.

Question 31

What else do you need to explain for the actus reus of wounding?

Answer 31

Causation- factual and legal.

Question 32

What is the mens rea of section 20 wounding?

Answer 32

R v Mowatt defines it as direct intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham) as to cause some harm.

Question 33

What is the mens rea of section 18 wounding?

Answer 33

R v Belfon says it is direct (R v Mohan) or oblique intention (R v Woollin) to cause really serious harm.

Question 34

Where is GBH defined?

Answer 34

Under sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Question 35

What is the actus reus of GBH?

Answer 35

To inflict/cause grievous bodily harm on a person.

Question 36

Which case is always used for GBH and how did it define GBH?

Answer 36

DPP v Smith and it defined GBH as serious harm. However it also said V’s injuries don’t need to be permanent or life threatening.

Question 37

Which case said that GBH can be serious psychiatric harm?

Answer 37

R v Burstow.

Question 38

What did R v Dica say?

Answer 38

GBH can be serious biological harm.

Question 39

What did R v Brown and Stratton say?

Answer 39

GBH can be an accumulation of more minor injuries.

Question 40

Which case said that age and health are factors to be considered when deciding if injuries are serious enough to be GBH?

Answer 40

R v Bollom.

Question 41

Which case said that GBH can be committed indirectly?

Answer 41

R v Martin.

Question 42

What else must be proved in GBH?

Answer 42

Causation- factual and legal.

Question 43

What is the mens rea for section 20 GBH?

Answer 43

Direct intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham) as to cause some harm (R v Mowatt).

Question 44

What is the mens rea for section 18 GBH?

Answer 44

Direct (R v Mohan) or oblique intention (R v Woollin) to cause really serious harm (R v Belfon).

Question 45

What is the alternative mens rea for section 18 GBH or wounding?

Answer 45

Causing GBH and/ or wounding with intention to resist arrest and intention or recklessness as to causing some harm.

Question 46

When would the alternative mens rea for section 18 GBH or wounding be used?

Answer 46

If D caused GBH or wounding to a police officer while trying to resist arrest. (It is meant to try and protect police officers by making the punishment very harsh for causing them GBH or wounding while they are just doing their job).

Question 47

What is NFO eval point number 1?

Answer 47

The crime of assault can be criticised because lay people constantly confuse it with crimes that require injury or contact (ie battery or s47). This makes the law difficult to understand, and can lead to problems with accurate crime reporting if the public cannot identify these common crimes. The LC have suggested changing the names of assault and battery to threatened assault’ and ‘physical assault’ respectively. This is much clearer in identifying whether contact has been made and should clarify the law for lay people. However, they also want to have a crime of ‘aggravated assault’ which involves causing an injury, so the
word assault may still confuse people by being used in 3 crimes with different outcomes. Overall, this would make the law more effective than it currently is though.

Question 48

What is NFO eval point number 2?

Answer 48

S47 goes against the principle of correspondence – the idea that AR and MR should be equal when deciding guilt. In s47, the AR is more important because D must cause an injury
but does not need any MR for it. This can be unfair because the level of harm caused may be down to luck, whereas D has more control over the level of harm intended, meaning D’s
blameworthiness may not be reflected. The LC want to by replace s47 with 2 crimes: aggravated assault, and causing injury. Causing injury corresponds because D must cause injury in the AR and have the MR for injury too. Aggravated assault still does not correspond because the AR requires an injury but the MR is only for threatened or physical assault, but the sentence has been reduced from 5 years down to 12 months to mitigate any injustice
caused by this. Therefore, this would still be more effective than the current law.

Question 49

What is NFO eval point number 3?

Answer 49

The sentencing difference between s20 and 18 can also be questioned. S20 carries a 5 year maximum compared to s18’s discretionary life. This is a very large jump considering the actus reus is identical, and s18’s sentence could be seen as too high because it is on the same level as murder despite nobody dying and D not having the mens rea to kill. The LC suggest increasing s20’s sentence to 7 years but keeping s18 with a life sentence. The life sentence can be justified on the grounds that implied malice in murder is the same as s18’s mens rea, and this acts as a strong deterrent. The change to s20 would not make the law much more effective though because there is still a big gap between the 2 sections.

Question 50

What is NFO eval point number 4?

Answer 50

Lastly, the current crime of wounding has little value in the law. Firstly, it sits alongside GBH in s18 and 20, suggesting that a break in 2 layers of skin is as serious as GBH – which is
false considering even pin-pricks can break 2 layers of skin. Additionally, wounding is a type of injury rather than a level of injury (ie we don’t have the crimes of ‘breaking bones’ or
‘bruising’; we just have GBH and ABH), so it makes the law more complicated than it needs to be. The LC recognised this and would simply include wounding as an ‘injury’ or ‘serious
injury’ depending on how bad the cut is. This simplifies the law and would make it more effective both in theory and practice.