Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Law > Non-fatal offences A01 > Flashcards

Non-fatal offences A01 Flashcards

1
Q

What are the 5 non-fatal offences?

A

Assault
Battery
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm
Inflicting grievous bodily harm or wounding with intent

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

What Act covers ABH? and what is the sentencing for this offence?

A

s.47 Offences Against the persons act - max 5 years

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

What Act covers GBH? and what is the sentencing for this offence?

A

s.20 offences against the person act - max 5 years

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

What Act covers GBH with intent? and what is the sentencing for this offence?

A

s.18 Offence against the person act - max life imprisonment

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

What Act would the sentencing of common assault come under? and what is the sentencing for this offence?

A

s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 - 6 months

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

What is assault defined as?

A

To intentionally or recklessly cause the victim to fear immediate unlawful personal violence

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

What is the actus reus of assault?

A

There must be a positive act. Fear of any unwanted touching is enough - it doesn’t have to be serious violence. There must be an act or words - but there doesn’t need to be any physical contact between D and V

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

What case illustrated that silence could become an assault? and what happened in this case?

A

Ireland - D made several silent phone calls to 3 women. V may fear that the purpose of the call is to determines if she is at home, and that the caller is about to come to her home immediately after the call

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

What case illustrated that letters can form and assault? and what happened in this case?

A

Constanza - Letters sent by stalker were interpreted as clear threats and there was a fear of violence at some time ‘not excluding the immediate future’.

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

What 2 cases shows that the victim must apprehend or fear unlawful force?

A

Logdon
Lamb

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

What happened in the case of Logdon?

A

D, as a joke, pointed a gun at a V who was terrified until she was told it was a replica. She feared that he may have hurt her

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

What happened in the case of Lamb?

A

Ds were playing with what they both thought was an unloaded revolver. Lamb pointed it at v and pulled the trigger. There was no assault as V didn’t think the gun could fire

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

In what 2 circumstances would it be obvious that immediate force couldn’t be used against the v?

A

D shouting threats from a passing train
Pointing an unloaded gun at someone who knows its unloaded: Lamb

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

What case illustrates that words can cancel out an assault? what happened in the case?

A

Tuberville v savage - A man put a hand on his sword and said, ‘if it were not assize-time, i would not take such language from you’ Despite the act which made v fear immediate violence, the words that accompanied the act showed that no violence was going to be used.

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

What cases illustrates that the immediate force need not be instantaneous but imminent? and what happened in this case?

A

Smith v Chief Constable of Woking - D entered a private garden at night and looked through the bedroom window of the V. She was terrified and thought he was about to enter the room and she would be subject to violence

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

The mens rea for assault is either:

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
17
Q

What meant by the intention that needs to be established for the mens rea of assault and what case illustrates this?

A

If it’s the D’s aim, purpose and desire to cause V to apprehend immediate violence: Mohan

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

What meant by the recklessness that needs to be established for the mens rea of assault and what case illustrates this?

A

That the D is aware of the risk they are causing to apprehend immediate violence and taking the risk anyway: Cunnigham

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

What is battery defined as?

A

To intentionally or recklessly apply unlawful force to another

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

What is the actus reus for battery and what are the cases that illustrate this?

A

There must be an application of force - touching is enough: Thomas
The force that’s applied must be unlawful: Collins v Wilcock

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

What happened in the case of Thomas 1985?

A

A caretaker was charged with indecent assault after touching the hem of a 12 year old girls skirt

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

What happened in the case of Collins v Wilcock?

A

2 police officers saw D soliciting. They asked her to get into the police car for questioning but she refused and walked away. One of the officers walked after her to try find out her identity and took hold of her by the arm to prevent her leaving. She became abusive and scratched the officers arm. She was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. She appealed and the court held that the officer committed a battery

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

In what situations would a a contact with another person not be classed as a battery?

A

Implied consent in normal social situations
Tap on shoulder to gain attention
Jostling on public transport
Bumping in corridors at college

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

What two cases illustrate that battery can be committed via an indirect act?

A

DPP v K
Haystead

25
What happened in the case of DPP v K?
D hid acid in a hand drier in the bathroom, from their science lesson. The next person to use the drier was sprayed with acid - this was held to be an indirect application of force
26
What happened in the case of Haystead?
D caused a child to fall to the floor by punching the person holding it. D was guilty of battery even though they didn't intend to injure the child, but principle of transferred malice applied
27
What 2 things are needed for the mens rea of battery? and what are the cases that illustrate these?
Intention to apply unlawful physical force: Mohan Recklessness that the force will be applied: Cunnigham
28
Battery - This force can be merely contact, as long as the contact is____________
unlawful
29
Battery- There is no requirement for the V to have suffered any kind of _________ or __________
injury or harm
30
Under s.47 of the Offences against a person act 1861, what is actual bodily harm defined as?
An assault or battery that occasions actual bodily harm
31
What is meant by occasions?
causes
32
What is meant by common assault?
Assault or battery
33
How would the actus reus be formed for a s.47 offence?
Either: An assault + Actual bodily harm OR A battery + Actual bodily harm
34
How would the actus reus of common assault be applied in a question?
All AR and MR of assault or battery need to be present so it will need to be discussed first and then the extra elements which make it a s.47 need to be discussed
35
What case originally defined Actual bodily harm and what is it defined as?
Miller 1954 - 'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort' of the v
36
What case better defined Actual Bodily Harm after Miller? and what was the definition?
Chan Fook 1994 - Harm means injury, and actual means 'not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant'. Bodily harm is not limited to the skin, flesh and bones of the v. It includes organs, nervous system and brain. It also includes psychiatric injury but not mere emotions such as fear, distress, or panic
37
What happened in the case of T v DPP?
V was chased by D, V fell to the ground and was kicked by D. This caused V to lose consciousness for a brief period. Losing consciousness, even momentarily, can constitute ABH
38
What happened in the case of Smith 2006?
D cut off V's ponytail with scissors. ABH isn't limited to injury, and extends to hurt and damage as long as it's not trivial. ABH applies to all parts of the body, including hair
39
What is the mens rea for a s.47 ABH?
There is no separate mens rea for ABH, it is the mens rea from the relevant assault or battery which must be present
40
How does the case or Roberts 1971 illustrate the mens rea for a s.47 ABH?
V was a passenger in D's car and injured herself when jumping from the vehicle while it was moving. D had the intention (mens rea) to commit a battery and the injuries of the V were caused by the battery so he was guilty of a s.47
41
Under s.20 of the Offences against a person act 1861, what is grievous bodily harm and wounding defined as?
Unlawful and malicious wounding or inflicting of any grievous bodily harm
42
What was GBH defined as in the case of Smith?
'really serious harm'
43
What happened in the case of Bollom 2003?
D caused severe bruising to a 17 month old baby. The court of appeal held that the v's age and health are relevant when deciding whether an injury amounted to GBH
44
What case confirmed that GBH includes psychiatric harm?
Burstow 1997
45
What happened in the case of Dica 2004?
D had sex with 2 women when he knew he was HIV positive. Both women contracted HIV
46
What happened in the case of Brown v Stratton?
V was a transexual who went to the market stall where his father worked. The father felt humiliated to see his son as a woman and along with his cousin attacked the V with a chair causing a broken nose, 3 lost teeth, and a concussion. The combination of these lesser injuries were held to amount to grievous bodily harm
47
What is 'wounding' defined as under a s.20 GBH? and what case illustrates this?
A break in the continuity of the skin - both layer of skin (an open wound with blood lose): JCC v Eisenhower
48
What is the mens rea for a s.20 GBH?
Maliciously - intentionally or recklessly causing some harm
49
In relation to the mens rea, does the D need to intend the specific injury/harm?
No, it just needs to be proven that the D either intended their act to result in some unlawful bodily harm: Mohan, or was subjectively reckless as to the risk that his act might result in such harm: Cunningham
50
What happened in the case of Parmenter and what does it illustrate in s.20 GBH?
Mens rea - D injured his 3 month old baby when he there his child in the air and caught him. D said he often did this with older children and didn't realise the risk of any injury. D wasn't guilty of s,20 as he didn't intend or been reckless as to causing the harm
51
What is Grievous bodily harm/wounding with intent defined as under s.18 offences against a person act 1861?
Unlawful and malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent to do some GBH to any person
52
What is the actus reus for a s.18 GBH with intent?
Wound - JCC v Eisenhower GBH - serious harm: Bollom, Dica Causation - factual and legal: White, Pagett, Jordan
53
Whats the mens rea for a s.18 GBH with intent?
Direct intent to cause GBH - An intention to wound isn't enough : Taylor Indirect intent to cause GBH - The act/omission of D is 'virtually certain' to cause GBH and the D realises this: Belfon
54
What happened in the case of Belfon?
D slashed V with a razor blade causing severe wounds to the face and neck. the court said, in order to establish a s.18 offence, the specific intent part of the offence must be proven. D being reckless as to whether such harm would be the result is not sufficient
55
What happened in the case of Taylor 2009?
The D attacked the C, who suffered minor scratches to the face and a stab to his back. The mens rea of s.18 of the offences against the person act 1861 is intention to cause GBH. An intention to merely wound is not sufficient
56
What is the rules surrounding mens rea and resisting arrest? Give a case example:
Where D is trying to resist or prevent arrest or detention then the level of intention regarding the injury is lower. D must have has specific intention to resist or prevent arrest but only needs to have been reckless as to whether his actions would cause a wound or injury: Morrison 1989
57
What happened in the case of Morrison 1989?
A police officer seized D and told him she was arresting him. He dived through the window dragging her with him causing bad cuts to her face. The 'malicious' element of the definition is relevant here - -the prosecution must prove D either intended injury or realised there was a risk if injury and took that risk
58
What is the difference between a s.20 and s.18?
The AR is the same but the MR is different: S.18 requires serious harm S.20 require some harm

Law (30 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions