Non Fatal Offences

Question 0

R v Ireland

Answer 0

Assault by words/silence
HofL considered words as actions and silent calls could be considered omission (failure to speak) but were also a form of positive communication as defendant intended silence to be a threat

Question 1

Common Assault s39 OAPA

Answer 1

AR– an act apprehension (expectation) of immediate violence
MR– intention to cause apprehension of immediate violence or subjective recklessness as to whether such apprehension is caused (def must foresee a risk that the victims will apprehend immediate unlawful violence)

Question 2

Battery s39 OAPA

Answer 2

AR– direct or indirect non consensual physical contact

MR– intention to make direct/indirect non consensual physical contact with another ;or subjective recklessness as to whether harm should occur (Cunningham)

Question 3

Haystead

Answer 3

Convicted of battery where def hit a woman causing her to drop the baby - convicted of battery on the baby even though he didn’t touch it

Question 4

Implied consent

Answer 4

Established in Collins v Wilcox
Examples include:
-jostling on the underground
-amicable back slapping

Question 5

Thomas

Answer 5

Minor touching will suffice - needs to be physical contact to describe battery as ‘violence’

Question 6

Consent

Answer 6

Can be a defence to non fatal offences as it negates the unlawfulness of the force used - ex consent to hug someone
- strives to achieve a balance between personal autonomy and prevention of harm

Remember RvBrown :
- HofL ruled that consent was only a defence to conduct that did not result in bodily harm(battery) HofL refused to enlarge that category to incorporate consensual bodily harm from sexual activity because not in the public interest for people to cause bodily harm for no good reason

Question 7

Exceptional circumstances where consent is permitted to injuries falling under s 47,20 and 18 of OAPA on basis that there is a good reason

Answer 7

Lawful surgery
Ear piercing and tattooing
Properly conducted sports activities
Manly horseplay (R v Aitken)

Question 8

Brown
Wilson
Emmett

Answer 8

Brown – consent was not a defence to harm being inflicted during homosexual Sado masochistic encounters - not in public interest that people should cause harm to each other for no good reason

Wilson – consent available for a man who branded his initials on his wife’s buttocks with a soldering iron- what happens between husband and wife in their home is private and no concern of criminal law - analogous to tattoo

Emmett– the def was not permitted to raise defence of consent in relation to injuries inflicted during the course of consensual Sado masochistic encounters between heterosexual partners – not in public interest to inflict harm for sexual gratification

Question 9

ABH s47 OAPA

Answer 9

AR– the same from either assault or battery plus ABH

MR– it is the MR of common assault or MR of battery

Question 10

Lewis

Answer 10

Victim locked herself in the bathroom and husband was breaking down the door she jumped out of the window to escape

His common assault (apprehension of immediate violence) was held to be cause of injuries sustained in the fall

Question 11

Roberts

Answer 11

Victim was a passenger in a car driven by the def. he committed battery by interfering with victims clothing - she jumped out of the moving vehicle to avoid his attentions - it was held that the defs battery caused the injuries sustained by the victim in the fall

Question 12

Miller

Answer 12

Injury to the victims state of mind for the time being amounted to bodily harm

Question 13

Chan Fook

Answer 13

Held that body was not limited to flesh and bones but includes organs nervous system and brain- mere emotions such as fear distress and panic are excluded

Question 14

Ireland

Answer 14

Confirmed Chan Fook and held that psychological injury could amount to ABH but that it should also be a matter of expert evidence

Question 15

Burstow

Answer 15

-HofL held that a sufficiently serious psychological injury could amount to GBH or ABH

Question 16

Morris

Answer 16

Expert evidence on psychological injury must be given by an expert in the field and not a general practitioner

Question 17

R v Savage

Answer 17

Men’s era for assault - must have intention to cause victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence ; subjective recklessness thereto- def must be aware of the risk that victim is apprehending the physical violence
Half men’s Rea
– HofL dismissed appeal for lack of MR because s47 required intention or subjective recklessness in relation to common assault or battery only – no requirement of intention or foresight in respect of the injury caused by assault or battery

Question 18

GBH s20 OAPA

Answer 18

AR–wounding or inflicting GBH

MR –intention or recklessness as to the wound or infliction of GBH

4 different ways s20 is established 
A) intentional wounding 
B) intentional infliction of GBH
C) reckless wounding
D) reckless infliction of GBH

Question 19

Difference between GBH and wound

Answer 19

GBH – general term meaning ‘really serious harm’ (DPP v Smith)

Wound– break in the continuity of both layers of the skin (C v Eisenhower)

Question 20

Pure v modified Cunningham recklessness

Answer 20

Pure– requires def to foresee a risk that his conduct will cause the prohibited consequence (wound / GBH)

Modified – (Mowatt gloss) catches defs who foresee that their actions will cause some harm but who do not expect it be so serious that it amounts to GBH

Test for recklessness under section 20 – foresight of risk of harm albeit not harm of the severity that actually occurred

Question 21

GBH with intent s 18 OAPA

Answer 21

AR– wounding or causing grievous bodily harm

MR– maliciousness and ulterior intent (to cause GBH or resist/prevent lawful detention
Malice: was wound or GBH intentionally caused or reckless?
Ulterior intent: was def acting with intention of causing GBH or resisting or preventing lawful arrest?
-liability for omission cannot come under section 20 therefore must come under section 18 (covers GBH caused by omission)