non fatal offences Flashcards

1
Q

Assault

A

To intentionaly or recklessly cause another person to fear immediate unlawful personal violence

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

Assault

A

To intentionaly or recklessly cause another person to fear immediate unlawful personal violence

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

Actus reus fur assault

A

Requires act or words - not necessary for physical contact
Actus reus is completed when D does any act or says something which causes V to believe unlawful force us about to be used against him/her
There must be a positive act
Fear if unwanted. Touch is enough - it does not have to be serious touch.

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

Key cases fur assault actus reus - words

A

Ireland 1998
Constanta 1997

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

Ireland 1998

A

D made several silent phone calls to 3 women

V may fear that the purpose of the phone call is to determine if sge us ar home and the caller is about to come in her home immediately after the call.

Held - silence can be sufficient for a charge of assault

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

Constanza 1997

A

Letters sent by a stalker were interpreted as clear threats abd there was fear of violence at some time

Held - silence can be assault

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

Key case for Fear of force

A

Logdon 1976

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

Logdon 1976

A

D as a joke pointed a gun at a v. Who was terrified until she was told it was fake.

V had apprehended immediate physical violence abd D had been at the very least, reckless as to whether this would occur.

a thrat to harm somoe can amount to an assault- fear

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Actus reus - fear of force

A

Act/words must cause V to fear that immediate force is going to be used against them

If it is obvious that D can it use force, there is no assault
- D shouts threat from a passing plane/ train
- pointing a unloaded gun at someone who knows it is unloaded (lamb)

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

Key case for words cancelling out any assault

A

Turberville v Savage 1669

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Turberville v savage 1669

A

A man put his hand on his sword and said. If it were not assize-time. I would take such language from you.

Held - words can cancel out assault

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

Actus reus - immediate force

A

The force must be immediately but thus does not mean instantaneous but imminent

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

Key case for immediate force

A

Smith v chief constable of working 1983

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

Smith v chief constable of working 1983

A

D entered a prove garden ar night and looked through the windows of v. She was terrified and thought he was about to enter the room and subject to violence.
D was guilty of assult
Held - force must be immediately but this does not mean instantaneous

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

What is Mens Rea

A

An intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful violence.

OR

Recklessness as to whether such fear is caused

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

Basic intent

A

Assault is a basic intent crime - this mean that doing that AR while intoxicated classes as recklessness and is no defence

intention to commit actus reus - fear

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Key case for basic intent

A

DPP V Majewski 1976

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

DPP V Majewski 1976

A

D consumed large amounts of drugs and alcohol and then attacked the landlord. Landlord called the police and D also attacked the police officer.
held - getting intoxicated by drink of drugs was a reckless course of conduct and reckless is enough to constitute the necessary MR in assault cases.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Essay plan

A

I - which offences are present

D - state the definition of the offence/describe what it means

A- apply the definition to the problem using relevant case law to back up your explanation

S- summarise in whether D would be guilty and what sentence he will receive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Battery

A

To intentionally or recklessly app,h unlawful force to another

Actus reus - application of force

There must be some force - touching is enough

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Key case for battery

A

R v thomas 1985

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

R v thomas 1985

A

Caretaker charged with indecent assault after touching the hem of a 12 year old skirt

Whilst it was determined that there wasn’t an indecent act, it was decided that if you touch clothing whilst a person is wearing them, this is equivalent to touching them

Held - thee must be some force touching is enough

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Fagan

A

accidently drove his car onto a police officers foot and whenhe was aksed to move he refused.although he didnt have the intentonat thetimeof the act the continuing act of his refusal makes him guilty of batterey

Held - Force can be continuing act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Collins v willcock 1984

A

2 police officers saw D soliciting. They asked her to get into the police car did questioning but she refused and walked away, one of the police officers walked after her trying to find out her identity and took her by the arm to prevent her leaving, she Navajo abuse and scratched the officers arm.

She was convicted of assuming a oikcuve office. She applied and the courts held that the officer had committed battery against her as he was applying unlawful force (if he was arresting her it would of been lawful)

The court said that touching a person to get his attention was acceptable proving that no cdffdd of physical contact was used then necessary. Physical restraint was not acceptable

Held - unlawful force there for police officer was guilty of battery however if he was arresting her it would have been lawful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Lawful force negated any offence of battery

A
  • implied consent in normal social situations
  • tap on the shoulder to get attention
  • hosting on public transport
  • bumping in corridors at school
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Key cases for actus reus - indirect act

A

DPP v K 1990

Havstead (2000)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

DPP v K 1990

A

D had acid in a hand drier in the bathroom,

The next person to use the drier was sprayed with acid - this was held to ne the indirect application of force
Held - indirection of force

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Haystead (2000)

A

D caused a child to fall to the floor by lunching the person holding the child.

D guilty of battery against- ddint intend to injure child, but principle of transferred malice applies.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Men Rea (same as assult)

A

Intention to apply unlawful physical force

OR

Recklessness that the force will be applied

30
Q

Important thing to remember about battery

A

It is purely an application of force

Thus force can be merely contact, as long as the contract is unlawful

There is no requirement for V to have suffered any kind of injury or harm

If D applies unlawful force with either intent or recklessness his is guilty of battery.

31
Q

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

A

Whoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasionally actual bodily harm shall be liable, at the discretion court, to be kept in Leno servitude for the term of three years or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard Kabila and whosevee shall,be convicted upon an idicemnt for a common assult should be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be Imprisoned for any term not exceeding one years with or without hard labour

32
Q

Offences against the person act s47 ABH

A

Ar - common assult, occasionally, bodily harm

Mr- intention/ recklessness as to an assult/battery

33
Q

S47 abh

A

All mr and ar elements of battery + actual bodily harm causation MR

34
Q

In s 47 abh it must be proved there was an assault or battery

A

All ar/mr elements of assault and battery need to be present

Exam tip - so you will do an IDA for assuaging or battery first, then go on to discuss the extra elements that make it s.47 ABH

35
Q

AR - causation

A

Occasioning means causation

It needs to be proved that the assault/battery committed by the D actually caused the ABH injuries.

So factual and legal causation

36
Q

Definition p/key cases for harm

A

Miller 1954

Chan-fook 1994

37
Q

Miller 1954

A

‘Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the healt or conduct

38
Q

Chan-folk 1994

A

Harm means injury abd actual means not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant.

Bodily harm is not limited to harm to the skin, flesh abd bones of the V. It includes organs, nervous system abd brain.

Held - also includes psychiatric injury (but not mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic)

39
Q

T v DPP 2003

A

V was chased by D, V fell to the ground abd was kicked by D. This caused V to lose consciousness for a brief period.

Losing consciousness, even momentarily, can constitute ABH.

40
Q

Smith (2006)

A

D cut off Vs pony-tail with scissors. Since ABH isn’t limited to injury abd extends to hurt abd damage as long as not trivial. ABH applies to all parts of the body, including hair.

Whilst a bruise technically constitutes ABH - it is unlikely the CPS would prosecute

42
Q

Men’s rea

A

Intent/recklessness as to an adult or battery

There is not an operate MR for ABH - it is the MR from the relevant assailant or battery which much be present.

Exam tip- all need to briefly mention mens rea for a s.47 ABH is that of the original assault or battery as discussed above.

Where D wither intends or is reckless in terms of an assault/batterey, if he causes harm which constitutes to actual bodily harm he is guilty of a.47 OAPA

43
Q

Key case for mens rea of actual bodily harm

A

Roberta 1971
Savage 1991

44
Q

Roberta 1971

A

V was a passenger in Ds car and injured herself when jumping from the vehicle without it was moving. D had the MR to commit a battery - the injuries were caused by the battery’s so he was guilty of a.47 ABH

45
Q

Savage 1991

A

D threw beer at victim, but accidentally let go of The beer glass, causing much more serious injuries that were intended.

Court confirmned that for a s.47 offences (or s.20) it is intent or reckless to the common assault (or some harm for s.20)

46
Q

Grievous bodily harm

A

Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously would or inflict any gracious bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instructmrng, shall be guilty of a misdemannor and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of court, to be kept in penal servitude for the team of three years. Or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.

47
Q

Inflicting bodily injury, with or without weapon

A

Whose ever shall unlawfully and maliciously woukd or inflict gracious bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument. Shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years

48
Q

Gracious bodily harm s20 definition

A

Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously would or inflict any gracious bodily harm upon any person, either with or without any weapon or instrument shall be guilty of an offence

50
Q

R- unlawful GBH

A

No consent to the act
. Subject to age restriction set out by statute, it is not an unlawful act to have a tattoo or a piercing . As long as consent is genuine

51
Q

AR gbh - wound

A

A break in the continuity (surface) of the skin - both layers of the skin (an open wound with blood loos usually)

52
Q

JCC v Eisenhower 1984

A

V was hit by an air gun pellet in the eye. He suffered bruising and internal bleeding in the eye. Not wounding, as there was no wound breaking the skin

54
Q

Ar - gracious bodily harm

A

GBH = Smith really serious harm -> Saunders serious harm

55
Q

AR - gracious bodily harm case

A

Bollom 2003

56
Q

Bollom 2003

A

D caused severe bruising to a 17 month old baby

COFA held, vs age and health are relevant when deciding whether and injury amounted to GBH

You have to assess the effects of the harm to the particular victim

57
Q

Burstow 1997

A

Does not require an assult or batterey

Need only be shown that Ds actions caused (led to) the consequence of v Suffering GBH

No difference between the world inflict in s20 and cause in s18

58
Q

Dica 2004

A

D had sec with 2 women when he knew he was HIV positive. Both women contracted HIV as a result. There is no doubt that infecting someone with HIV is inflicting gracious bodily harm.

Biological harm (HIV)

59
Q

Brown and Stratton 1998

A

V was a transsexual who went to the market stall where his father worked. The farther felt humiliated to see his son as a women and along with his cousin attacked v with a chair, causing a broken nose, 3 lost teeth and a concussion.

The combination of the injuries was held to amount to Gregory’s bodily harm

60
Q

AR - causation factual and legal

A

Men’s real - maliciously
Maliciously means intentionally or recklessly causing some harm. Not the level of the harm (ie wounding/ GBH) - Cunningham
So - must prove D either intended their act to result in some unlawful bodily harm to v. Or was subjectively reckless as to the risk that his act might result in such harm

Parameter 1991

61
Q

Parameter 1991

A

Accused does not have to foresee that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity within the definition GBH

62
Q

A.18 gracious bodily harm with intent

A

Definition - whosever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever round or cause any grevious bodily harm to any person, with intent to do some greviosy boldiky harm to any person

63
Q

Actually reus for s.18 greviosu bodily harm

A

Same as for a.29

.unlawful (no consent)
. Would - (JCC v Einsenhower) - break in the continuity of skin
GBH - (really serious harm, bollam, dica brown and stratton. Smith, Saunders
. Causation - factual and legal. Paget/white/jordan/roberts/ blaue

64
Q

Men’s rea

A

Direct to cause GBH
Taylor 2009

65
Q

Taylor 2009

A

V was found with scratches across his face and a stand would in his back. Photographs of the scratches showed more than surface depth of the wound. The medical evidence did not held in showering whether D had intended to cause really serious injury. The judge directed the hurt must be sure that the orosecutyion had proved that D had intended to cause gBH harm or to wound. D was convicted of a s18 offence. On appeal the court quashed the condition on the basis the judge misdirected the jury.

An intention to would was not sufficient for the men’s tea of s18 instead, the court appeal susittited a conviction for s20.

Held. And intention to wound is not enough for a.18

66
Q

Foresight of consequences - oblique intention

A

If the act of the D is virtually certain to cause GBH and the D realises that this is so, the D has the necessary men’s tea for s.18

Belfon 1976

67
Q

Belfon 1976

A

D slashed v with a razor blade causing severe wounds to his face and chest. Court said in order to establish a a.18 offence the specific intent part of the offence must be proven. D being reckless to whether such harm (ie GBH) would be the result in not sufficient.

68
Q

Men’s rea - arrest

A

Where D is trying to resist or prevent arrest of detantion then the level of intention regarding the injury is lower

D must have had specific intention to resit or prevent arrest but only needs to have been reckless to whether his actions would wound or injury.

Morrisons 1989

69
Q

Morrison 1989

A

Police officer grabbed d to arrest him but d leapt through a window n dragging the officer who was badly cut by glass.

D was convicted as either intended injury or realised risk of it occurring and took risk.