Non fatal offences against the person

Question 1

Assault

Answer 1

To intentionally or recklessly cause another person to fear immediate unlawful personal violence

Question 2

Actus Reus for assault

Answer 2

Requires an act or words - not necessary for physical contact Actus reus is completed when d does any act or says something which caused v to believe unlawful force is about to be used against him / her there must be a positive act. Cannot be committed by omission. Fear of any unwanted touching is enough it does not have to be serious force. Words are sufficient for an assault.

Question 3

Ireland 1998

Answer 3

D made several silent phone calls to three women. V may fear that the purpose of the call is to determine whether she is home , and that the caller is about to come to her home immeadiately after the call.

Question 4

Constanza 1997

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Logdon 1976

Answer 5

Fear of force D, as a joke pointed a gun at the victim who was terrified until she was told it was a replica. V had apprehended immediate physical violence and d had been at the very least reckless as to whether this would occur. Contrast to lamb - d’s 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.

Question 6

Actus reus - fear of force

Answer 6

Act / words must cause v to fear that immediate force is going to be used against them. If it is obvious that d cannot use force there is no assault. D shots threats from a passing plane / train . Pointing an unloaded gun at someone who knows it’s unloaded as in lamb . Words can cancel out any assault

Question 7

Turberville v savage 1669

Answer 7

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 immeadiate violence putting a hand on his sword the words that accompanied the act showed that no violence was going to be used.

Question 8

Actus reus - immeadiate force

Answer 8

The force must be immeadiate, but this does not mean instantaneous but imminent. Meaning it’s approaching.

Question 9

Smith v chief constable of Woking 1983

Answer 9

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 . D was guilty to assault.

Question 10

Men’s Rea to assault

Answer 10

An Intention to cause another to fear immeadiate unlawful violence or reckless as to whether such fear is caused.

Question 11

Basic intent

Answer 11

Assault is a basic intent crime this means that doing the art while intoxicated classes as recklessness and is no defence.

Question 12

Dpp v majewski 1976

Answer 12

D had consumed large quantities of drugs and alcohol and then attacked the landlord of the public house where he was drinking. The landlord called the police and the d also attacked the police officers who tried to arrest him. The law lords held that becoming intoxicated by drink or drugs was reckless course of conduct , and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mr in assault cases.

Question 13

Battery

Answer 13

To intentionally or recklessly apply unlawful force to another. Actus reus application of force there must be some force touching is enough. Actus reus unlawful force. Actus reus indirect act

Question 14

R v Thomas 1985

Answer 14

Caretaker charged with indecent assault after touching the hem of a 12 years old girls skirt. Whilst it was determined and that there wasn’t an indecent act, it was decided that if you touch clothing whilst a person is wearing them this is equivalent to touching them. The force can be a continuing act - fagan

Question 15

Collins v Wilcock 1984

Answer 15

2 police officers saw d soliciting. They asked her to get into the police car for questioning she refused and walked away. One of the officers walker after her to try find out her identity, and took hold of her by then arm to prevent her leaving, she became abusing and scratched the officers arm. She was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, she appealed and the court ruled the officer had committed battery against her as he was applying unlawful force he wasn’t arresting her which would have been lawful force. The court said that touching a person to get his attention was acceptable provided that no greater degree of physical contact was used than was necessary. However physical restraint was not acceptable.

Question 16

Lawful force negates any offence of battery

Answer 16

Implied consent in normal social situations
- tap on the shoulder to get attention
- jostling on public transport
- bumping in corridors at school

Question 17

Dpp v k 1990

Answer 17

D hid acid in a hand drier in the bathroom . The next person to use the dryer was sprayed with acid - this was held to be the indirect application of force,

Question 18

Haystead 2000

Answer 18

D caused a child to fall to the floor by punching the person holding the child.d guilty of battery didn’t intent to injure child but principle of transferred malice applies.

Question 19

Men’s Rea for battery same as assault

Answer 19

Intention to apply unlawful physical force
Or
Recklessness that the force will be applied
It is purely and appplication of force.

Question 20

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

Answer 20

Whoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable , at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for the term of three years or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years with of without hard labour and whoever shall be convicted upon and indictment for common assault shall be liable, at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding one year, with or without hard labour. Occasioning means causation .

Question 21

What must you prove for Abh?

Answer 21

Must prove there was an assault or battery
- all ar /mr elements of assault and battery need to be present
Exam tip - so you will do an Ida for the assault or battery first , then go on to discuss the extra elements that make it a s 47 abh

Question 22

Ar - causation of ABH

Answer 22

‘ occasioning means causation you need to prove that the assault / battery committed by the d actually caused the Abh injuries so factual and legal causation.

Question 23

What is harm ?

Answer 23

• covers bruises, scratches broken noise etc
• also includes psychiatric injury but not mere emotions such as distress or panic chan - fook. Whilst a bruise technically constitutes Abh it is unlikely the cps would prosecute .

Question 24

Miller 1954

Answer 24

‘ any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort ‘

Question 25

Chan - fook 1994

Answer 25

Harm means injury and actual means not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant. Bodily harm is not limited to harm to the skin flesh and bones of the v . It includes organs nervous system and brain .

Question 26

T v dpp 2003

Answer 26

V was chased , 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 .

Question 27

Smith 2006

Answer 27

D cut off v’s ponytail with scissors . Since Abh isn’t limited to injury and extends to hurt and damage as long as not trivial . Abh applies to all parts of the body including hair.

Question 28

Men’s Rea for Abh

Answer 28

Intent / recklessness as to an assault or battery. There is not a separate mr for Abh - it is the mr from the relevant assault or battery which must be present. Exam tip - so all you need to do is briefly mention that ‘ the men’s Rea for a s 47 Abh is that of the original assault or battery as discussed above ‘ . Where d either intends or is reckless in terms of an assault / battery first, if he causes harm which constitutes actual bodily harm he is guilty of s 47 oapa

Question 29

Robert’s 1971

Answer 29

V was a passenger in d’s car and inured herself when jumping from the vehicle whilst it was moving . D has the mr to commit a battery - injuries were caused by the battery so he was guilty of s.47 ABH

Question 30

Savage 1991

Answer 30

D threw beer at the victim , but accidentally let go of the beer glass causing much more serious injuries than were intended. Court confirmed that for a s 47 or s20 GBH it is intent or recklessness to the common assault or some harm for s 20.

Question 31

S20 grievous bodily harm

Answer 31

Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any person , either with or without any weapon or instrument shall be guilty of an offence.

Question 32

Actus reus for GBH S20

Answer 32

Unlawful No consent to the act - subject to age restrictions set out by statute , it is not an unlawful act to have a tattoo or piercing. As long as consent is genuine. AR- wound a break in the continuity surface of the skin - both layers of the skin an open wound with blood loss usually Ar - grievous bodily harm GBH = smith serious harm = Saunders serious harm Ar causation factual and legal

Question 33

JCC V Eisenhower 1984

Answer 33

V was hit by an air gun pellet in the eye, he suffered bruising and internal bleeding I. The eye not wounding , as there was no wound breaking the skin .

Question 34

Bollom 2003

Answer 34

D caused severe bruising to a 17 month old baby coafa held , v’s and health are relevant when deciding whether an injury amounted to GBH . you have to assess the effect of the harm to the particular victim.

Question 35

Burstow 1997

Answer 35

Grievous bodily harm includes psychiatric harm v suffered severe depression due to behaviour of her stalker who carried out an 8 month campaign of harassment following the break up of their brief relationship. The campaign include letters , phone calls hate mail and stalking . It was decided that serious psychiatric injury can be grievous bodily harm .

Question 36

Dica 2004

Answer 36

D had sex with two women when he knew he was hiv positive . Both women contracted hiv as a result. There is no doubt that infecting someone with HIV is inflicting a grievous bodily harm injury.

Question 37

Brown and Stratton 1998

Answer 37

V was a transsexual who went to the market stall where his father worked. The father felt humiliated to see his son as a women and along with his cousins attacked v with a chair , caught a broken nose 3 lost teeth and a concussion. The combination of the injuries was held to amount to grevious bodily harm.

Question 38

Men’s Rea for GBH

Answer 38

‘Maliciously ‘ means intentionally or recklessly causing some harm not the level of harm ie wounding / GBH think about Cunningham ! So - must prove d either intended their act to result in some unlawful bodily harm to v or was subjectively reckless as to the risk that his act might result in such harm.

Question 39

Parmenter 1991

Answer 39

D injured his three month old baby when he threw the 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 was not guilty of s20 he hadn’t intended or been reckless realised risk and took risk away as to causing some harm.

Question 40

S 18 grevious bodily harm with intent

Answer 40

Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grevious bodily harm to any , person with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person

Question 41

Actus reus for s 18 GBH

Answer 41

Same as for s 20 Unlawful no consent Wound jcc v Eisenhower break in continuity of the skin GBH really serious harm bollom dica brown and Stratton smith Saunders Causation factual and legal pagett white, Jordan Robert blaue

Question 42

Men’s Rea for s18

Answer 42

Direct intent to cause GBH - d stabs b intending to seriously injure them. An intention to wound is not enough Taylor 2009 men’s Rea arrest where d is trying to resist or prevent arrest or detention then the level of intention regarding the injury is lower . D must have had specific intention to resist or prevent arrest but only needs to have been reckless as to whether his actions would cause wound or injury.

Question 43

Taylor 2009

Answer 43

V was found with scratches across his face and a stab wound in his back . Photographs of the scratches showed no more than surface depth of the wound. The medical evidence did not help in show on whether d had intended to cause really serious injury. The judge directed threat the jury must be sure that the prosecutions had proved d had intended to cause grevious bodily harm or to wound . D was convicted of a s18 offence. On appeal the court of appeal quashed the conviction on the basis that the judge misdirected the jury. An intention to wound was not sufficient for the men’s Rea of s 18 instead the court of appeal substitute a conviction for s 20.

Question 44

Foresight of consequences - oblique intent

Answer 44

- if the act d is virtually certain to cause grievous bodily harm and the d realised that this is so , then d has the necessary men’s Rea for s 18.

Question 45

Belfon 1976

Answer 45

D slashed v with a razor blade causing severe wounds to his face and chest . Court said in order to establish a s18 offence the specific intent part of the offence must be proven. D being reckless as to whether such harm ie GBH would be the result is not sufficient.

Question 46

Morrison 1989

Answer 46

Police officer grabbed defendant to arrest him but defendant leapt through window dragging officer who was badly cut by glass, defendant was convicted as either intended injury or realised risk of it occurring and took risk.