Non Fatal Offences Against The Person

Question 1

What is assault and what case was it defined in

Answer 1

MPC V FAGAN 1969
-‘An assault is committed where the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence’

Question 2

What is the actus reus of assault

Answer 2

An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force. An omission can not apply to assault.

Words are sufficient for assault. Verbal or written
R v constanza 1997- defendant had written 800 letters and number of phone calls to victim. Victim interpreted last two as a threat.

Question 3

Give 3 cases for assault and their legal principles

Answer 3

R V light 1857
Facts: The defendant held a sword above his wife’s head and said ‘Were it not for the bloody policeman outside, I would split your head open.’
Legal principle - The defendant negated his statement but he was found guilty of assault as the threat was so harsh. Words don’t automatically negate assault.

R v Ireland (1997) -D made a number of silent phone calls to women across a three month period (he breathed heavily down the phone line). The women suffered psychiatric harm as a result. D was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Legal principle - silence can constitute an assault where it causes the victim to apprehend fear. That fear can be induced over the telephone. This case is also key to show that silent phone calls that cause psychiatric injuries can amount of actual bodily harm

R v Logdon (1976) - defendant pointed a replica gun at the victim as a joke. When they realised the victim was frightened, they explained the gun wasn’t real and that they weren’t in danger.
Legal principle: A defendant may be guilty of assault despite not having the means or intent to carry out the threat. Here they acted recklessly. In essence this means there doesn’t need to be an actual threat. Just an apprehension of one from the victim.

Question 4

Which case conveys an assault not being instantaneous but imminent

Answer 4

Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police Station (1983)
The defendant entered the victim’s enclosed garden and was looking through her bedroom window. The victim saw the defendant and was fearful of why the defendant was in her garden and what he might try to do to her.
D was found guilty.

LP- while d was outside and couldn’t hurt the defendant immediately, this was still assault

Question 5

What is the mens Rea of assault

Answer 5

Intention or recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence

Question 6

Give 2 cases and their legal principle for the MR of assault

Answer 6

R v Savage [1991]
D threw a pint of beer over V in a pub. The glass slipped out of D’s hand and smashed and cut V’s wrist. V was D’s husband’s ex-girlfriend and there had been bad teeling between the two.
• maintained that it was never her intention to throw the glass just to humiliate her by throwing the beer.
LP-It was not necessary to demonstrate the defendant had the mens rea in relation to level of harm inflicted. It was sufficient that they intended or could foresee that some harm will result.

R v Parmenter (1991)
D inflicted injuries upon his infant son, including bruises, broken bones, and abrasions to his limbs. The injuries had resulted from the rough way D had handled his child, but being unused to dealing with children, D had been unaware that such behaviour may cause injury.
LP-It is not a defence to say that the defendant had no foresight to the actual bodily harm.

Question 7

What is the actus reus of battery and what is a case showing the minimal requirement sufficient

Answer 7

Application of unlawful force to another person intending either to apply unlawful physical force to another person or recklessness as to whether unlawful force is applied

R v Thomas 1985

D (a school caretaker) touched and rubbed the hem of a skirt of two pupils (aged 11 and 12).
Guilty of battery
LP: Touching clothes while someone is wearing them, is equivalent to touching them

Question 8

Give 2 case studies for how battery can be indirectly applied

Answer 8

Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire (2000)
hit his partner in the face. She was holding her child at the time ho she dropped. The child hit his head.
Guilty - D was guilty of battery to the child despite not intending to hurt him.
Legal principle: Battery is not limited to the direct application of force. It can be applied indirectly.

DPP V K 1990

A 15 year old school boy took some acid from a science lesson. He placed it into a hot air hand drier in the boys’ toilets. Another pupil came into the toilet and used the hand drier. The nozzle was pointing upwards and acid was squirted into his face causing permanent scars. The defendant was charged under
S.47 OAPA 1861
Legal principle: The application of force need not be directly applied.

Question 9

What case shows how the slightest touch constitutes to battery

Answer 9

Collins v Wilcock (1984)
D and a triend were incorrectly suspected by the police to be prostitutes. D refused to speak to the police officer and so the police officers are with her fingernails.
D responded by scratchina the police
Not guilty.
Legal principle: The court confirmed that the AR of battery was unlawful force on another person. But here the use of force was lawful. The defendant was legally defending herself.

Question 10

Which case did courts rule which force is legal and give examples

Answer 10

In the case of Collins v wilcock 1984 the court set out several examples of when the use of force was consensual and thus lawful.
Force applied in a legal arrest
Force used in self-defence
Force applied in ordinary physical contacts of everyday life. — by moving within society there is an implied consent (handshakes, being ón the underground, etc)
Tapping someone to get their attention

Question 11

In faulkner v talbot 1981 what did lord lane define unlawful physical force as

Answer 11

Faulkner v Talbot (1981)
Lord Lane defined unlawful physical force as “any intentional [or reckless touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. It need not necessarily be hostile, rude, or aggressive.

Question 12

What is the MR of battery

Answer 12

Intention or recklessness to apply unlawful force to another

Question 13

What is a case study for the MR of battery

Answer 13

R v Venna 1976
-defendant and group of youths caused disturbance and resisted arrest violently, leading to a fractured hand of the arresting officer.

The appeal claimed the judge erred by allowing recklessness as sufficient mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
JUDGEMENT
The court dismissed the appeal and said that recklessness in the use of force sufficed to establish the required mental element for forming the intent to commit battery. Therefore, the judge’s instructions were accurate and valid.
KEY POINTS
Recklessness alone can be sufficient mens rea (mental state) for an assault resulting in actual bodily harm, even if the defendant’s reckless behaviour causes injury to a police officer.

Question 14

Give an example of how battery can be committed through an omission

Answer 14

DPP V SANTA BERMUDEZ 2003
-before searching pockets of defendant, policewoman asked d if he had any needles or sharp objects on him which he responded no. When she put her hand in his pocket she was injured by a needle resulting in bleeding.

-failure of telling police officer about needle amounts to AR

Question 15

What law is ABH under

Answer 15

S.47 OAPA 1861
-triable either way offence
-max 5 year sentence

Question 16

What is the AR of abh

Answer 16

Defendant commits assault or battery occasioning ABH
3 PARTS:
-the assault or battery
-the causation link ‘occasioning’
-the resulting harm

Question 17

Give 5 cases for ABH

Answer 17

1. R v Abbas 2009)
   D barged into a group of people outside a bar. He later punched one of the group. The victim fell, hit their head, suffered temporary loss of consciousness and had cuts and bruises.
   Legal principle: Loss of consciousness is sufficient for ABH
2. R v Miller 1954)
   D’s wife had left him and following year she petitioned for divorce. Before the hearing for the petition the defendant had sexual intercourse with her against her will. He had thrown ler to the ground on three occasions and she was in a hysterical and nervous condition as a result of his actions. He was charged with rape and assault occasioning actual bodil harm contrary to s.47 OAPA 1861. D relied on the marital consent exception to rape and that nervous shock does not amount to a bodily injury.
3. R v Donovan (1934)
   D indecently assaulted a 17 year old girl by beating her with a cane in line with his sexual desires. D said that V consented so there was no crime.
   Legal principle - Consent to an unlawful act is not a defence, although some exemptions do exist. The phrase bodily harm should take its ordinary meaning. It includes “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort” of V. The judge also said “Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than merely transient and trifling.
4. R v Chan Fook (1994)
   Victim was French student lodging with a English family in Lewisham. The victim was suspected of theft when an engagement ring went missing. The victim was then alleged assaulted and ended up being locked in his the home. Victim was afraid and tried to escape by tying bedsheets together and attempting to scale down the house to escape and in this attempt suffered a fractured wrist and dislocated pelvis.prosecution claimed the victim had suffered psychological damage as a result of the whole incident the case for alleged assault prior to to escape was not brought.
5. R v Roberts (1971)
   A young woman accepted a lift from D at a party to take her to another party. D drove to a remote place and started making sexual advances towards her. She refused his advances and D drove off at speed. D then started making further advances whilst driving. D jumped out of the moving car to escape him. She suffered from concussion and cuts and bruises. D was inítially convicted of ABH under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He appealed contending that he did not intend or foresee a risk of her suffering actual bodily harm from his actions and that he did not foresee the possibility of her jumping out of the car and therefore her actions amounted to a novus actus interveniens.
   Guilty - original decision held
   Legal principle - There is no need to establish an intention or recklessness as to the level of force under s.47. It is sufficient to establish that D had intention or was reckless as to the assault or battery. Where the victim’s actions were a natural result of the defendant’s actions it matters not whether the defendant could foresee the result. Only where the victim’s actions were so daft or unexpected that no reasonable man could have expected it would there be a break in the chain of causation.

Question 18

What is the MR of abh

Answer 18

The defendant has intention or recklessness to the initial assault or battery

Question 19

Give 8 examples of ABH injuries

Answer 19

• Loss or breaking of a tooth
• Temporary loss of consciousness (T v DPP (2003))
• Extensive or multiple bruising
• Broken nose
• Minor fractures
• Minor cuts requiring stitches
• Psychiatric injury (more than fear, distress or panic)
• Cutting hair off (DPP v Smith (2006))

Question 20

What are the two different types of GBH

Answer 20

BOTH UNDER OAPA 1861
S.20 -5 years maximum prison sentence. Triable either-way.
Again, the statute gives very little detail so the common law has filled in the gaps.
Section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861: “Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm on another person, either with or without a weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence triable either way and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for five years.”

S.18- This offence carries with it a maximum life sentence.
Only triable in the crown court - indictable offence.
The difference between s20 and s18 is the MR. The AR is the same for both apart from the word “inflict” is “substituted for “cause”.
Essentially this is semantics as they mean the same thing.
For s18 a sense of foresight is required. The MR allows intention but not recklessness.

Question 21

What is the difference between wounding and GBH

Answer 21

A wound is something which breaks the continuity of the whole skin.
GBH means “serious harm” can can be infection, physical harm
or
psychiatric harm. It doesn’t have to be deadly.
The victim’s circumstance can also be taken into account to judge what is serious.

Question 22

What is the AR of GBH

Answer 22

the defendant unlawfully and maliciously wounds or inflicts grievous bodily harm to another

Question 23

Examples of GBH

Answer 23

broken bones, stab wounds, bullet wounds, permanent injuries (brain damage, disability, etc), internal bleeding, loss of limb/s and psychiatric conditions.

Question 24

Give 3 cases for s.20 GBH

Answer 24

1.R v Saunders (1985)
D punched the victim in the face following an argument. The punch caused serious injuries
Legal principle: GBH requires proof of “serious injury”. It is not necessary for the word “really” (i.e. really serious injuries).

2. R v Goulding (2014)
   •gave the victim herpes (downstairs, as opposed to a cold sore). D knew he was ta risk The detende denied that ers is amounted the serious eathis required for GBH.
   Legal principle: Recklessly infecting someone with a sexual disease it enough for s20 GBH. It is not necessary for the harm to be permanent, dangerous or even require treatment for the offence to be proved. Whether the injury is sufficient for GBH is for the jury to decide.
3. Moriarty v Brookes (1834)
   • was a publican. He argued with a customer over a disputed payment and struck him causing a cut below his eye. D argued he had asked the customer tọ leave, and he had refused to do so and the force was lawfully applied in ejecting him from the pub.
   Legal principle: D used excessive force. Judge said: “The definition of a wound in criminal cases is an injury to the person, by which the skin is broken.
   If the skin is broken, and there was a bleeding, that is a wound”

Question 25

What is the MR of GBH S.20

Answer 25

the defendant intends or is reckless as to some harm to another
Some harm is an important phrase here. There is no need for the defendant to intend to commit a serious injury.
You can use all the same cases - Savage, Parmenter and Venna.

Question 26

What is the MR of s.18 GBH

Answer 26

the defendant intends grievous bodily harm or intends to resist lawful arrest

Question 27

What are the 2 cases for s.18 GBH

Answer 27

R v Taylor (2009) - attacked victim with knife and fork
Facts: The defendant was convicted of s.18 GBH when the trial judge directed the jury that they could convict if they believed the defendant intended to wound the victim.
Held: The Court of Appeal reduced the charge to s.20 GBH.
Thomas LJ said ‘an intent to wound is insufficient. There must be an intent to cause really serious bodily injury. It is not necessary for us to set out why that was so because the statutory language is clear.’

R v Morrison (1989)
A police officer seized hold of D and told him that she was arresting him. He dived through a window, dragging her with him as far as the window so that her face was badly cut by the glass.
Legal principle: The prosecution must prove that the defendant either intended injury or realise there’s a risk of it in injury and took that risk.
This established a lower intention for s18 for cases resisting or preventing involving lawful arrest.