Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law > Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person > Flashcards

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Flashcards

1
Q

Statutory Basis: Wounding/ Causing GBH intentionally

A

S. 18 Offences Against the Person Act 1862

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

Statutory Basis: Wounding/ Inflicting GBH maliciously

A

S.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1862

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

Statutory Basis: Assault occasioning ABH

A

S.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1862

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

Statutory Basis: Common Assault and Battery as summary offences

A

S.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

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

R v Venna

A

Common Assault

Something done by D that intentionally or recklessly causes V to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence

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

R v Ireland, R v Burstow (Common Assault)

A

D made silent phone calls mostly at night. V suffered mental illness as a consequence of the fear generated by D
HL held words were capable of being assault, and silence could be the equivalent of words constituting an assault

Imminence requirement: fear of the possibility of imminent violence

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

Constanza

A

Assault: Imminence requirement

Imminence could mean fear of violence at some time not excluding the immediate future.
Fear would not be valid if it was clear nothing would happen in the immediate future

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

Faulkner v Talbot

A

Battery

The act does not have to be rude, hostile or aggressive

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

Collins v Wilcock (Battery)

A

Battery

No need for any perceptible harm or injury to the victim

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

K (Divisional Court)

A

Battery: No need for direct force

Schoolboy hid corrosive chemicals in a hand dryer. Injured the next person to use it.
Held this was a case of battery

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

Santa-Burmudez

A

Battery: No need for a positive act

Officer searched D for drugs. Asked if he had any needles on his person, he said no.
When she searched him she got stabbed by a needle in his pocket
Court adopted Miller type analysis that D had created a dangerous situation

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

Actus Reus of assault occasioning ABH

A
  1. A technical assault (Satisfaction of AR for common assault/ battery)
  2. The technical assault leads to a higher level of harm (ABH)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Miller

A

Assault occasioning ABH: AR

Any hurt or injury that is calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim

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

Actual Bodily Harm: CPS Guidance

A

Should charge s47 where the injuries and overall circumstances indicate the offence merits the longer prison sentence and is unsuitable for summary trial

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

Chan-Fook

A

Assault occasioning ABH: AR

Can apply to psychological injuries if they are:
established my medical evidence and
are recognised medical conditions

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

Savage; Parmenter

A

Assault occasioning ABH: MR

Constructive: Do not have to foresee or intend the actual bodily harm provided you can prove intention/ recklessness as to the the technical assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Moriaty and Brooks

A

Wounding/ Inflicting GBH maliciously: AR

Wound: Must be a puncture of the whole skin so as to cause true bleeding

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

JCC v Eisenhower

A

Wounding/ Inflicting GBH maliciously: AR

Internal injuries are not wounds

19
Q

Wounding/ Inflicting GBH maliciously CPS guidance

A

An assault resulting in minor injuries such as a small cuts should be more appropriately be charged as common assault (if it is though that 6 months imprisonment is enough) or s47 ABH.

20
Q

DPP v Smith

A

Wounding/ Inflicting GBH maliciously: AR

GBH: Really serious injury

21
Q

Ireland (Wounding/Inflicting GBH Maliciously)

A

Actus Reus

GBH includes serious psychiatric injury

22
Q

R v Bollom

A

Wounding/ Inflicting GBH maliciously: AR

What amounts to grievous harm will depend on the characteristics of the victim

23
Q

R v Mowatt

R v Savage

A

Wounding/ Inflicting GBH maliciously: MR

D must have foresight of some physical harm
Doesn’t necessarily have to be the wound/GBH that actually results

Confirmed in HL

24
Q

R v Clarence

Wilson

Ireland, Burstow

A

Wording of inflicting (s20) vs causing (s18) GBH: Timeline

The concept of infliction requires a common assault/ battery

No need to read in a need for technical assault into the term
Just need force to be violently applied

Discarded violence requirement
Therefore there is no radical divergence in the terms inflicting in s20 and causing in s.18

25
Q

MR for Wounding/ Causing GBH Intentionally

A

‘Unlawfully and Maliciously’ wound/ cause GBH

With intent to:

  1. Do GBH to any person
  2. Intent as to resisting/ perverting of arrest
26
Q

Donovan

A

Consent

If it is a defence, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove it- therefore does it make a difference what consent operates as?

27
Q

Collins v Wilcock (Consent)

A

Consent is implied for contact is such as should be expected in every day life- no battery

28
Q

Meachen

A

If somebody’s intention is limited to minimal acceptable contact, but something more serious occurs that they will not be liable
(case of negotiated consent, no reason why this should not have the same application to implied consent)

29
Q

A-G Reference (No 6 of 1980)

A

Consent

Public policy invalidates consent wherever ABH is deliberately inflicted- not in the public interest

Exceptional cases:
Properly conducted sports
Lawful chastisement or correction
Reasonable surgical interference
Dangerous exhibitions
30
Q

Coney

A

Consent exception: Boxing

Not lawful if done for pleasure, or a prize fight without proper regulation and rules

31
Q

Barnes

A

Consent exception: Football

Doctrine of consent covers a certain level of improper play because it can be expected that during play the rule will be occasionally infringed
Improper play will become illegal if it goes beyond the reasonable expectation of people on the field

32
Q

R v Jones

R v Aitken

A

Consent exception: Horseplay

Children giving each other bumps not unlawful

Workers decided to test one another’s fire retardant suits not unlawful

33
Q

R v Wilson

R v Emmet

A

Consent exception: Body Modification

Husband branded wife with her consent- was held to be legal by analogy with tattooing

D poured lighter fluid on partners breasts and set light to them with consent- was unlawful

Cases suggest no general rule can be drawn from wilson- cases assessed on a case by case basis

34
Q

R v Brown

A

Consent

Group of sadomasichists prosecuted
Established that the mere desire to express your desires through violence for sexual gratification is not legal even with express consent from your partner

Criticism: here was no complaint from anyone in the group, was only prosecuted because a video fell into the police’s hands.
In such a private context should there be a more autonomy based approach

35
Q

D (1984)

A

Consent: Children

Concerned kidnapping by estranged father
A 5 year old would not be capable of giving consent

36
Q

R v Dica

A

Consent: HIV

Consent to intercourse is not per se consent to risk of disease
However, explicit consent to such a risk can constitute a defence to s.20 (malicious wounding/GBH)

37
Q

R v Konzani

A

Consent: HIV

If D knows he is suffering from HIV and conceals it, this constitutes a deception that will negate any consent as it is not fully informed

38
Q

Hierarchy of main offences against the person

A
  1. Murder
  2. Manslaughter
  3. s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861: Wounding/ Causing GBH with intent
  4. s.20 OAPA: Wounding/ Inflicting GBH maliciously (intentionally or recklessly)
  5. s.47 OAPA: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH)
  6. Battery
  7. Assault
39
Q

Wounding/ Infliction GBH maliciously: Mens Rea

A

Malice= subjective intention or recklessness as to the injury

40
Q

Barnes (academic)

A

Limitations on consent:

A person cannot consent to their own death

41
Q

S 2 Suicide Act 1961

A

Killing a consenting victim is murder through abetting suicide

42
Q

Consent: Mistake and Fraud

A

Consent must be informed

43
Q

Critical point: consent and HIV transmission

A

Odd way to model a sexual transaction by requiring ‘full disclosure if required’, is not done in other similar situations
However could be justified as within the public interest?

44
Q

General Critical points:

A
  1. Provocation/ loss of self control is relevant only to sentencing in non-fatal cases
  2. The terminology of the Offences against the person Act 1861 has been criticised as incoherent:
    Use of the term ‘assault’ to mean both ‘common assault’, and ‘assault or battery’
    Use of varying operative verbs: s.18: cause, s.20: inflict, s.47: occasion
    Hard for courts to apply uniformly, direct juries, discern the intention of parliament
  3. The law is very old- how can it be expected to cope with modern issues e.g
    communication of HIV
    Stalking through technology
    Interaction with the ECHR

Criminal Law (10 decks)

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