Non-fatal Offences Flashcards
What is assault?
This an offence in which the victim anticipates the defendant will use violence against them.
It is the least serious non-fatal offence as no touching occurs.
Assault is defined in the ‘common law’ (precedents found in case law).
Assault: Assault is where the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439). The House of Lords confirmed this definition of the offence in the case of R v Ireland; Burstow [1998] AC 147.
What is the actus reus of assault?
‘Causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’
* Apprehension
- Apprehension means to make the victim expect or anticipate but not necessarily fear
immediate and unlawful personal violence (contrast R v Lamb and R v Logdon).
- Words alone and silence is enough (R v Ireland).
- Words can however negate an assault (Tuberville v Savage).
* Immediate
- Does not mean instantaneous but some time not excluding the immediate future (R v Constanza) or imminent (R v Ireland).
* Unlawful
- Not done in self-defence or with the victim’s consent.
* Personal violence
- All the victim has to anticipate is an unwanted touch.
What is the mens rea for assault?
The defendant intends or is reckless as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence (R v Venna).
* Assault is a basic intent crime, meaning it can be committed intentionally or recklessly.
* A defendant intends an assault if it was D’s aim or purpose (R v Moloney).
* A defendant is reckless as to an assault if they:
- See a risk that their actions will cause the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence; and
- In the circumstances known to D, it was unreasonable to take that risk (R v G).
The case of R v Savage; Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 714 (HL) confirmed the view that subjective recklessness (as now set out in R v G) must be established for any assault charge based upon recklessness.
What is battery?
A battery us where the defendant touches the victim in an unwanted fashion.
Battery is defined in common law.
Battery: A battery is the actual intended use of unlawful force to another person without
consent (Fagan v MPC). The House of Lords confirmed this definition in the case of Ireland and further confirmed that it includes the reckless application of force.
What is the actus reus for battery?
Application: Battery can be inflicted:
- Directly (Collins v Wilcock).
- Indirectly (R v Martin, DPP v K).
- By an omission (Santana Bermudez).
* Unlawful
- Means that the battery isn’t done in self-defence or with V’s consent for example.
- Consent can be express or implied consent to inevitable everyday contact (Collins v Wilcock).
* Force Means the merest of touch (Collins v Wilcock) and doesn’t have to be rude, hostile or aggressive (Faulkner v Talbot).
- Touching someone’s clothes is enough (R v Thomas).
- Where the battery results in harm which is more than trivial, the defendant will be liable for the more serious offence under s 47.
What is the mens rea for battery?
The defendant must have an intention be reckless as to applying unlawful force on another person (R v Venna).
What is a s 47 offence?
Section 47 OAPA 1861 provides:
Whosoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable […] to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding five years.
What is the actus reus for ABH?
An ‘assault’
There must be an ‘assault’. This has been interpreted to mean that there must be either an assault or battery (DPP v Little [1992] QB 645 (DC) and R v Ireland; Burstow [1998] AC 147). Both the actus reus and the mens rea of either an assault or battery must be established.
Occasioning
The assault or battery must ‘occasion actual bodily harm’. In other words, the assault or battery must result in actual bodily harm being caused to the victim.
This offence can also be committed through an omission if the defendant created the danger and failed to avert it.
Actual bodily harm was said to include ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere
with the health or comfort’ of the victim.
It was said that the hurt need not be serious or permanent but must be more than transient and trifling. Actual bodily harm was held to include psychiatric injury, although Hobhouse LJ emphasised:
[…] it does not include mere emotions such as fear or distress or panic nor does it include, as such, states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition.
What is s 20 GBH?
Section 20 OAPA 1861 provides:
Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence […]
The defendant must either wound or inflict grievous bodily harm.
What is the mens rea for ABH?
- No mens rea is required for the actual bodily harm;
- All that is required is the mens rea for the assault or the battery.
What is the actus reus for s 20 GBH?
Note that s 20 creates two offences:
* Malicious wounding; and
* Maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm.
It was held that the rupture of blood vessels internally is not sufficient to constitute a wound.
There must be a break in the continuity of both layers of the skin. Both the dermis and epidermis must be broken.
It is important to realise that if there is proof of a wounding, the actual injury need not be severe; any breaking of the skin will suffice.
Normally the wounding will be such that causation will not be an issue. Occasionally, however, it may be, for example where:
* D chases the victim, causing them to fall and cut their head; or
* D throws a knife and V tries to intercept it.
The House of Lords held that the words ‘grievous bodily harm’ simply mean ‘really serious harm’.
In Saunders [1985] Crim LR 230, it was decided that it would not be a misdirection to leave out the word ‘really’; the words ‘serious harm’ would suffice.
The Court of Appeal held that, in deciding whether or not the injuries sustained were ‘grievous’, the jury should consider the effect of the injuries on the victim, taking into account the victim’s age and health. The jury can also look at the totality of the injuries. This case concerned a baby with multiple cuts and bruises which on their own would not have been enough, but taken together, could amount to serious harm.
What is the mens rea of s 20 GBH?
D must intend or be reckless as to the causing of harm. The issue is the extent of the harm that must be intended or foreseen.
D must intend or be reckless as to the causing of some harm.
What is s 18 GBH?
Section 18 OAPA 1861 provides:
Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause
grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent […] to do some grievous bodily harm to any person […] shall be guilty of an offence […]
What is the actus reus of s 18 GBH?
The defendant must either wound or inflict grievous bodily harm. This is the same actus reus as that of a s 20 offence.
Again, note that s 18 creates two offences:
* Malicious wounding with intent to cause GBH; and
* Maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to cause GBH.
Wound
This bears the same meaning as under s 20 so there must be a break in the continuity of both layers of the skin. Both the dermis and epidermis must be broken. Any breaking of the skin will suffice (C (a minor) v Eisenhower).
Causing
Traditionally, it was accepted that the word ‘cause’ was wider than that of ‘inflict’ used under s 20. However, since the case of Wilson, there appears to be little significance in the use of different words under ss 20 and 18 and the normal rules of causation apply.
Grievous bodily harm
This bears the same meaning as under s 20 so serious harm (Saunders).
What is the mens rea of s 18 GBH?
The mens rea element is the key distinguishing feature between ss 18 and 20.
Under s 20 it is enough to intend or foresee (ie be reckless as to) some harm, however slight.
Intention to cause grievous bodily harm
For s 18 the defendant must actually intend to cause harm which amounts in law to grievous bodily harm (serious harm). Recklessness is not enough. Note, where the actus reus is a wound, the mens rea is still intention to cause GBH. Intention to wound is not enough.
Intention can be direct (aim, purpose, R v Moloney) or oblique (R v Woollin).
