Non-Fatal Offences

Question 1

What is the actus reus of s47 ABH?

Answer 1

1. Assault or battery leading to actual bodily harm.
2. Harm includes physical or psychiatric injury.

(e.g., R v Chan-Fook)

Question 2

What is the mens rea for s47 ABH?

Answer 2

The mens rea for the underlying assault or battery is sufficient; intention or recklessness as to causing ABH is not required.

(R v Savage)

Question 3

What is transferred malice?

Answer 3

When the defendant’s mens rea for one victim transfers to another.

(as in R v Latimer (1886))

Question 4

What are the criticisms of s18 and s20 GBH offences?

Answer 4

1. Inconsistent terminology (‘grievous’).
2. Overlap between the offences causing confusion.
3. Sentencing disparity despite similar harms.

Question 5

What proposals have been made to reform non-fatal offences?

Answer 5

The Law Commission suggested replacing the OAPA 1861 with a modern statute that clearly defines assault, battery, ABH, and GBH.

Question 6

What is the actus reus of common assault?

Answer 6

The victim apprehends immediate unlawful force.

(R v Ireland)

Question 7

What is the mens rea of common assault?

Answer 7

Intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.

(R v Venna)

Question 8

What is the actus reus of battery?

Answer 8

The application of unlawful physical force, however slight.

(Collins v Wilcock)

Question 9

How does psychiatric harm relate to non-fatal offences?

Answer 9

Psychiatric injury can constitute actual bodily harm.

(R v Chan-Fook)

Question 10

What is the difference between s20 and s18 GBH offences?

Answer 10

• s20: Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm.
• s18: Specific intent to cause serious harm.

(R v Parmenter, R v Belfon)

Question 11

Why is the OAPA 1861 criticized as outdated?

Answer 11

1. Archaic language (e.g., “maliciously”).
2. Lack of clarity in distinctions between offences.
3. Failure to account for modern medical and psychological harm.