Non-fatal offences against the person Flashcards
Smith v Chief Superintendent Working police station 1983) 76 Cr App R 234
common assault (apprehend)
conviction upheld.
D need not know exactly what type of violence she was afraid of.
V saw D looking through window at her. She did not know what D was going to do next, was frightened and D intended to frighten. D purported that she could not apprehend violence as he was outside.
R v Ireland (+R v Burstow) [1997] UKHL 34
common assault (immediate)
- silent telephone calls –could be an assault if V apprehend the infliction of immediate force “[The silent caller] intends by his silence to cause fear and he is so understood. The victim is assailed by uncertainty about his intentions. Fear may dominate her emotions, and it may be the fear that the caller’s arrival at her door may be imminent
+ psychologic harm can amount to ABH
R v Constanza [1997] Crim LR 576
common assault ( apprehend , immidiate)
conviction upheld
The defendant mounted a campaign of hate against an ex-work colleague over a period of 20 months. He sent over 800 threatening letters, would follow her home, wrote offensive word on her front door, drove past her house, stole items from her washing line. As a result she suffered clinical depression. He was charged with ABH under s.47 OAPA 1861. The defendant contended that words alone could not amount to an assault and that the letters could not amount to an assault as there was no immediacy.
DPP v Santana-Burmudez (Admin), [2004] Crim LR 471
assault - battery
Actus reus for assault/battery can include omission where D exposed the victim to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury through his acts or speech, and that force does not have to be applied by D directly
= D convicted of assault occasioning ABH
Police officer undertook a full body search of a suspect, D
When asked if he had any sharp items on him, D denied it
Police officer subsequently injured himself on a hypodermic needle in D’s pocket, D then shrugged and smirked
D was acquitted of assault by the Crown Court on the basis that D had not committed a positive act and an omission did not amount to assault
Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172
assault battery
touching may be acceptable if it is ordinary/normal and usual
note the important obiter dicta:
Everyday touching cannot be battery (e.g., in social settings or bumping into
others in public). Everyday touching involves either i) implied consent or ii) necessity.
held for D police action swere battery thus D was entitled to sself-defense
=> defined assault and battery :
Goff LJ set out the general definition for assault and battery:
‘An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person; a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person.’
The defendant was on the street with her friend. Both were known by the police to be prostitutes. An officer approached the two, suspecting that they were soliciting. The friend agreed to be questioned, but the defendant walked away. The police officer took hold of her arm to stop her from leaving, at which point the defendant swore and scratched at the officer. The defendant was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the course of duty. The defendant argued that she was not guilty of this offence, because the officer had not been acting in the lawful course of her duties
R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1991] UKHL 15
s 47
= the court convicted with s47 has no mens rea requirement for ABH (other than the MR for assault/battery)
■Savage meant to throw contents of beer glass over V but accidentally threw glass as well -> wound
■Parmenter handled baby roughly leading to wound
JJC V EISENHOWER [1984] 3 ALL ER 23
s 20
Held: His conviction was set aside. A conviction under section 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act for wounding required evidence of a break in the continuity of the skin. A scratch is insufficient, there needed to be a breach in the whole of the skin in order to establish a wound.
Facts: The defendant shot an airgun at a group of people. He hit someone just below the eye, causing bruising, but not breaking the skin. One blood vessel at least below the skin burst
R v Bollom (2004) 2 Cr App R 6
s 47 - s 20
Appeal allowed – the conviction was substituted for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s47
necessary to have regard to the effect of those injuries on V, taking into account V’s age and healt
The defendant was convicted of GBH under s.18 OAPA 1861 for injuries he inflicted on his partner’s 17 month old daughter. The injuries consisted of various bruises and abrasions. He appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the judge should have directed the jury that in assessing whether the injuries were serious enough to amount to GBH they should not take into account the age of the victim.
Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421
s 20 - s 18
D may be liable for inflicting GBH even though he was not aware of any risk that GBH might result from his actions
The defendant and a friend were out late at night, and came across the victim, at which point the defendant knocked the victim unconscious whilst the defendant’s friend proceeded to steal money from the victim. The victim then chased the friend but could not find him and so returned to the defendant, and insisted that he inform of the friend’s whereabouts. The defendant claimed to have felt endangered by the victim’s aggressive demeanour and so punched the victim, and proceeded to violently attack him. He was later charged with malicious wounding under s. 18 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
Issues
Whilst a jury has the option of returning a guilty verdict for the lesser charge of s. 20 when contemplating a charge under s. 18, did a judge err in failing to emphasise the distinction of malicious intent between the two crimes.
R v Dica [2004] 3 ALL ER 593
s 20 (GBH) - defence of consent - STDs
notes
1) V’s consent would be irrelevant if D intended to cause GBH by spreading a serious sexual
disease (s18 OAPA 1861, causing GBH with intent); and,
2) Under s20 OAPA 1861,
11 D would be guilty if he knew of the risk of his spreading the
serious disease and failed to obtain V’s consent to that risk. In other words, if V consented
after knowing D had the illness, D would be not guilty if he transmitted it to V.
Held:
The case was remitted for retrial.
The Court agreed that Clarence was no longer good law. Those who, knowing that they are suffering HIV or some other serious sexual disease, recklessly transmit it through consensual sexual intercourse, and inflict grievous bodily harm on a person from whom the risk is concealed and who is not consenting to it will be liable under s.20.
If however, the victim does in fact consent to the risk, this will provide a defence under s.20. Although the two are inevitably linked, the ultimate question is not knowledge, but consent.
The defendant was diagnosed as being HIV positive. Knowing of this he had unprotected sexual intercourse with two women. With the first woman he insisted that the intercourse was without protection having told her he had had a vasectomy. With the second he had used protection initially but later in the relationship had unprotected sex. He claimed that both were aware of his condition and had consented to unprotected intercourse with full knowledge of the risk. The women disputed this. The trial judge refused to allow the issue of consent to be put before the jury on the grounds that Clarence had been undermined and was no longer good law and the decision in R v Brown & ors [1994] 1 AC 212 had deprived the women of the legal capacity to consent to GBH in sexual activity.
R v Taylor [2009] EWCA Crim 544.
s 18 - intent - MR
for s 18, an intent to wound is insufficient. There must be an intent to cause really serious bodily injury
Conviction quashed
The defendant was convicted of unlawful wounding contrary to s.18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He had attacked the complainant, who suffered minor scratches to the face (inflicted with a fork) and a stab wound to his back (inflicted with a knife).
The defendant appealed his conviction on the basis that the judge had misdirected the jury on the mens rea of the offence. The judge had told the jury that the prosecution had to prove that the defendant intended to wound or cause GBH, but counsel for D argued that intent to wound is not sufficient.
Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim 706:
defence of consent - s 20
convicted
D was aware that he was HIV positive and the risk to his partners
D slept with 3 women who were unaware of his status
D was convicted under section 20 OAPA
D appealed on the ground that the women had consented to the risk of HIV by engaging in unprotected sex or alternatively that he had an honest, if unreasonable belief that they were aware of his status
R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 HL
defense of consent
■Majority: where an activity involves ABH, GBH or wounding the activity should normally be classified as unlawful
■Court asked to determine if sadomasochism a lawful activity?
■D caused V injuries amounting to ABH and GBH during private, consensual sado-masochistic sexual activities. Precautions taken, no serious injury intended
R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498
sexual violence, s 20, s 18 - defence of consent
beating someone with such force that infliction of bodily harm is a probable consequence is an unlawful activity irrespective of consent
D consensually hit a 17 year-old girl with a cane for the purpose of sexual gratification
R v Wilson (Alan) [1996] 2 Cr. App. R. 241
defence of consent
Court held:
■Mrs. Wilson instigated the act
■There was no aggressive intent
■The analogy with tattooing
■The privacy of the matrimonial home
Alan Wilson was charged under s 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for assault. He branded his initials into his wife’s buttocks with a hot knife.
