Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Flashcards
Assault - s 2
Without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly –
* Directly or indirectly applies force to or causes impact
* Causes another to reasonably believe, they are likely to be immediately subjected to any such force or impact.
without the consent of the other.
Force
- The slightest touch constitutes force for the purposes of the Criminal Law
- s 2(2): Includes “application of heat, light, noise, etc.”
- Can be indirect: DPP v. K (a minor) : Acid poured into a hand dryer caused injury to the next boy who used it
Causing to believe
Requires a reasonable belief that immediate personal violence is likely.
Words:
* R v. Ireland: “A thing said is also a thing done.”
* Doran v. Bus Éireann (a civil case): A bus-driver abused Mr Doran verbally, causing him to recoil. Approved R v. Ireland
* Repetitious silent telephone calls could constitute an assault (R v. Ireland)
Lawful Excuse / Consent / Mens Rea
- Open to necessity-based defenses.
- It must be proved the victim did not consent.
- Collins v. Wilcock: “most of the physical contacts of ordinary life are impliedly consented to by all who move in society.”
- s 2(3): No assault in the ordinary conduct of daily life
- Mens Rea: intention or recklessness
.Assault Causing Harm - s 3
- Harm is not necessary to be guilty of assault
- Assault in s 2 plus Harm = s 3 Assault Causing Harm
- Harm means harm to body or mind and includes pain and unconsciousness.
- Strict liability
- Consent
Strict liability / Consent
Strict liability - Minister for Justice v. Dolny
* Assault in s 3 means the same as assault in section 2
* Assault causing harm is an offence of strict liability
Consent - DPP v. Brown
* A prisoner agreed with a fellow prisoner that he would hit him so he would get a transfer.
* Held: consent is a defence to assault causing harm, unless given for an ulterior, or unlawful motive
* R v. Brown would not be followed in Ireland
Strangulation or Suffocation - s 3A
Without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly
* strangles or suffocates another, or
* causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to suffocation or strangulation.
Consent is a defence
Causing Serious Harm - s 4
Guilty if caused serious harm and intentionally or recklessly caused harm. No need to prove an assault, but must prove intention or recklessness.
* DPP v. Brown: This is a standalone offence and need not show an assault.
* S 1: Serious harm means a substantial risk of death, serious disfigurement, or substantial impairment of mobility of the body or functions of an organ.
DPP v. Kirwan 2018
* Serious injury does not need to be permanent or have long term consequences.
* Any medical treatment of an injury may transform that injury into serious harm.
* Impairment must be substantial but not necessarily permanent.
Strangulation or Suffocation Causing Serious Harm - s 4A
“[a] person who intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another by suffocating or strangling the other shall be guilty of an offence.
Threats to Kill or Cause Serious Harm - s 5
- Who, without lawful excuse, makes a threat intending the other to believe it will be carried out, to kill or cause serious harm to that other person or a 3rd party will be guilty of an offence.
- No immediacy requirement.
- R v. O’Brien: Must have intended the recipient of the threat to believe that the threat would be executed – regardless of whether the victim believed it or not.
Syringe, etc., Attacks - s 6
- Any sharp instrument - doesn’t need to be syringe
- S 6(1): piercing skin with a syringe or threatening to do so. Transferred mens rea applies
- Must prove intention to cause the other to believe they may become infected or that there was a likelihood of causing the other to so believe.
- S 6(2): Offence to spray, pour, or put onto another blood or any fluid or substance resembling blood or threatening to do so.
- S 6(5): contaminated syringes or blood. It doesn’t matter if the person got infected or not. A “contaminated syringe” is defined in s 1
Coercion - s 9
- Engaging in certain specified conduct for the purpose of forcing another person to do something or not to do something.
- No need to prove the accused succeeded in achieving their purpose.
- 5 types of conduct set out in s 9(1): violence / intimidation of person or their family, injury or damage, persistent following, watching.
- Must prove the conduct was wrongful and without lawful authority.
Harassment and Stalking - s 10
Without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, Intentionally or recklessly, At the time when the acts occur or when the other becomes aware of them, And a reasonable person would realise that the acts of the accused…
Harassment - s 10(1)
* Persistent
* Seriously interferes with another’s peace and privacy
* Causes alarm, distress or harm to the other
Stalking - s 10(2)
* Cause fear that violence will be used against him or her or another connected person
* Cause serious alarm or distress - substantial adverse impact on usual daily activities
Demands for Payment of a Debt - s 11
A person who makes any demand for payment of a debt shall be guilty of an offence if:
* Frequent demands cause alarm, distress or humiliation to person or family
* False representation re. criminal proceedings or official enforcement capacity
* A document falsely represented as official
Poisoning - s 12
If a person, knowing that the other does not consent, intentionally or recklessly
* administers or causes it to be taken, by another person.
* a substance capable of interfering substantially with the other’s bodily functions.
* The concept of innocent agency might be relevant
Endangerment - s 13
“who intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another.”
* DPP v. Cagney: the provision is quite vague and could apply to a list of actions that are unclear.
False Imprisonment - s 15
- Intentionally or recklessly: Takes or detains, Causes to be taken or detained, Or otherwise restricts the personal liberty of another person without consent.
- Not clear what degree of restriction is required - could be slight
- Kane v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison: Garda doesn’t enjoy general power to close surveillance, they need a specific adequate justification
- No minimum time requirement - can be momentary only
- Dullaghan v. Hillon & King: No need to prove that the victim was aware. Possible to falsely imprison someone who is asleep.
Child-Abduction Offences - s 16 & s 17
Child in this context is a person under the age of 16 years
Proof of absence of consent is not required (if no consent: false imprisonment)
International Child Abduction - s 16
Only applies to “a parent, guardian or a person to whom custody of the child has been granted by a court”.
Special type of defence available, in addition to standard ones
* unable to communicate but believes they would have consent
* did not intend to deprive others of rights of guardianship or custody
Removal of Child… - s 17
Removing the child from the lawful control, or keeping out of the lawful control
Additional defence for s 17
* “the defendant believed that the child had attained the age of 16 years.”
* The belief does not need to be reasonable, just honestly held
