Non-Fatal Offences Flashcards
What are the Five Non-Fatal Offences?
Assault. Battery. Assault Occasioning ABH. Wounding or GBH. Wounding or GBH with Intent.
Where are Non-Fatal Offences defined?
Under Offences Against the Persons Act (1861) (OAPA).
Is Assault defined under common law or statue law?
Common Law.
What is the Actus Reus of Assault?
Any Act where D causes V to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force.
What are three examples of the Actus Reus to Assault?
Raising fists.
Throwing stones at V and missing.
Making a threat.
What four cases are associated with Assault?
Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Polie Station (1983)
R v Constanza (1997)
R v Ireland (1997)
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
- What rules are associated with Assault?
- Apprehend does not mean fear. D doesn’t have to be scared.
- Threat must be immediate.
- Words can be an assault.
- Words might also negate an assault.
What happened in Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983)?
D stood in V’s garden at 11pm watching her get changed.
What is the legal principle in Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983)?
D argued no immediacy of threat, but as far as she was cornered the threat was immediate.
What is the legal principle in R v Constanza (1997)?
HoL said it’s sufficient for prosecution to prove apprehension of force at some time.
What was the legal principle in R v Ireland (1997)?
HoL ruled silent phone calls could be an assault.
What happened in Tuberville v Savage (1669)?
D put hand on sword and said “If it were not assize time I would not take such language from you”.
What is the legal principle in Tuberville v Savage (1669)?
Since he was saying he was not going to do anything because the court was in town there was no assault.
What is the Mens Rea of Assault?
D either intends to cause V to think they will inflict force or is reckless as to whether the victim will believe it. D must realise there is a risk the victim will believe it.
What is the Actus Reus of Battery?
D applies unlawful force to V. Can happen without an assault.
What are the rules associated with Battery?
Any unlawful physical contact can amount to Battery.
Force may be applied indirectly.
What four cases are associated with Battery?
R v Thomas (1985)
R v Marin (1881)
R v Haystead (2000)
Wilson v Pringle
What is the legal principle in R v Thomas (1985)?
Touching a woman’s skirt could be battery.
What happened in R v Martin (1881)?
D put iron bar against door of theatre, turned off lights and shouted fire.
What is the legal principle in R v Martin (1881)?
Convicted of GBH as some were seriously injured, put in the panic court said he had also committed battery though he’d not directly applied force to anyone.
What happened in R v Haystead (2000)?
D punched woman who was holding a baby. She dropped it.
What is the legal principle in R v Haystead (2000)?
Convicted of battery even though he’d not had direct contact with baby.
What is the legal principle in Wilson v Pringle?
Said application of force should be hostile.
What are three CPS examples of Battery?
Scratches.
Minor Bruising.
Black Eye.
What is the Mens Rea of Battery?
D intends or is reckless to the application of force.
What tier of sentence is ABH?
Triable either way.
What is the maximum sentence for ABH?
Five years imprisonment.
What is the Actus Reus for Assault Occasioning ABH?
Act caused ABH. Can be committed by assault or battery.
What three cases are associated with Assault Occasioning ABH?
Miller (1954)
R v Chan Fook (1994)
DPP v Smith (2006)
What are the rules associated with Assault Occasioning ABH?
‘Occasioning’ simply means ‘causing’.
Psychological injury can also be ABH.
What is the legal principle in Miler (1954)?
Court stated “Actual Bodily Harm includes hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort of the victim”.
What are the two legal principles in R v Chan-Fook (1994)?
1 The word actual indicated injury doesn’t have to be permanent, it should not be “so trivial as to be wholly insignificant”.
2 Has to be a clinically recognised condition for ABH to apply, not just emotions.
What happened in DPP v Smith (2006)?
D cut ex-girlfriends ponytail without consent.
What are three CPS examples of Assault Occasioning ABH?
Loss of Consciousness.
Displaced Broken Nose.
Minor Cuts – may need stitching.
What is the Mens Rea for Assault Occasioning ABH?
Same as for Assault and Battery. D doesn’t have to intend or be aware of risk of harm.
What are two cases associated with the Mens Rea of Assault Occasioning ABH?
R v Roberts (1978)
R v Savage (1992)
What happened in R v Roberts (1978)?
D convicted of ABH when he made advances to a girl in his car, she jumped out and was injured.
What is the legal principle in R v Roberts (1978)?
Argued he didn’t intend or foresee any risk of harm. However he had the mens rea for battery.
What happened in R v Savage (1992)?
D went to pub, saw husbands new girlfriend and threw pint over her, however glass slipped and cut woman’s wrist.
What is the legal principle in R v Savage (1992)?
Court said she didn’t need to be aware of risk she might cause harm, intended to apply unlawful force so convicted.
What is Wounding?
Means breaking the surface of the skin. Internal bleeding is not a wound.
What are two cases associated with Wounding?
Wood (1830)
JCC v Eisenhower (1984)
What happened in Wood (1830)?
D broke V’s collar bone.
What is the legal principle in Wood (1830)?
Skin was still intact do he was not guilty of wounding.
What happened in JCC v Eisenhower (1984)?
V hit in eye with shot-gun pellet. Causes internal rupturing of blood vessels.
What is the legal principle in JCC v Eisenhower (1984)?
There was no cut so couldn’t be wounding.
What are the rules associated with GBH?
Courts can take into account characteristics of V, e.g. age, health.
Biological harm can be accepted as GBH.
S20 uses “inflict”, used to be thought there needed to be a direct application, however not the case.
What are five cases associated with GBH?
DPP v Smith (1961) Saunders (1985) R v Bollom (2003) R v Dica (2004) R v Burstow (1997)
What is the legal principle in DPP v Smith (1961)?
Held GBH meant “really serious harm”.
What is the legal principle in Saunders (1985)?
Trial judge omitted the word “really”.
What happened in R v Dica (2004)?
D infected two woman with HIV, having sex when he knew he was positive but didn’t tell them.
What happened in R v Burstow (1997)?
D stalked women, she suffered severe depression as a result.
What is the legal principle in R v Burstow (1997)?
If D’s actions have led to consequence of V suffering GBH, it is enough to get a conviction, direct application not necessary.
What are three CPS examples of Wounding or GBH?
Compound Fractures.
Psychiatric Injury.
Injury Resulting in Permanent Disability.
What happened in R v Bollom (2003)?
V was 17 month child, suffered abrasions to body, arms and legs.
What is the legal principle in R v Bollom (2003)?
Court ruled it was GBH taking into account her age and frailty.
What is the Mens Rea of Wounding and GBH?
D intends to cause harm or is subjectively reckless.
What are three cases associated with the Mens Rea of Wounding and GBH?
R v Cunningham (1957)
R v Paramenter (1991)
R v Grimshaw (1984)
What is the legal principle in R v Cunningham (1957)?
Held that ‘maliciously’ mean intention to do the particular kind of harm that was done.
What happened in R v Paramenter (1991)?
D threw three month old in the air and caught him, causing serious injury to legs.
What is the legal principle in R v Paramenter (1991)?
D didn’t realise actions might cause injury so conviction was quashed under S20.
What happened in R v Grimshaw (1984)?
D pushed glass into face of person who insulted her boyfriend.
What is the legal principle in R v Grimshaw (1984)?
Guilty of GBH as she’d foreseen risk of some harm. Although inflicted more than she’d considered.
What is the Actus Reus of Wounding or GBH with Intent?
Same as S20.
What is the Mens Rea of Wounding or GBH with Intent?
Requires intention to be proven, Recklessness is not sufficient.
What case is associated with the Mens Rea of Wounding or GBH with Intent?
R v Nedrick (1986)
What is the legal principle in R v Nedrick (1986)?
Jury can decide if they intended harm if they were virtually certain it would occur as a result of their actions.
