Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

Question 1

V can apprehend immediate violence even though D has no plan to apply force

Answer 1

Smith (1983)

Man peering through gap in curtains

Question 2

Apprehension of the possibility of immediate personal violence will suffice

Answer 2

Ireland; Burstow (1998)
Ireland: Silence can amount to assault
Burstow: psychiatric illness does amount to bodily harm; inflict means cause and does not require physical contact
Harassment was a big issue at the time of these cases which reflects a change in law and attitudes

Question 3

Written threats can suffice

Answer 3

Constanza (1997)

There must be a fear of violence which includes the immediate future

Question 4

Intentionally or recklessly cause the victim to apprehend immediate force

Answer 4

Cunningham recklessness applies to assault

Question 5

Recklessness remains a subjective test

Answer 5

Spratt (1990)

Fired an air gun with pellets out of his window, didn’t think anyone was around but 2 pellets hit a girl

Question 6

Consent obtained by fraud is not consent

Answer 6

Tabassum (2000)

Lecturer lied and told victims he was doing research for a project in breast cancer

Question 7

Unclear boundaries on what amounts to ordinary conduct of daily life

Answer 7

Differentiate between Willcox and McMillan - common sense element?

Question 8

Actual touching is not required for battery

Answer 8

Lynsey (1995)

Spits in the eye of the police officer

Question 9

There can be a battery by omission

Answer 9

Fagan v Met Police (1969)
DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003)
Asked if suspected drug offender had any needles, lied and caused police officer harm

Question 10

Creating the situation is sufficient to amount to a battery

Answer 10

Martin (1881)
Put a bar across the exit and shouted “fire” - GBH
DPP v K (1990)
A school boy took sulphuric acid from the chemistry labs and put them in the hand dryer. Recklessness was sufficient (subjective).

Question 11

The assault must cause ABH

Answer 11

Miller (1954)
Actual bodily harm includes ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort’
Chan-Fook (1994)
Distinguish between emotions such as distress and states of mind identifiable as a clinical condition

Question 12

A wound

Answer 12

Dermins and epidermis must be broken (Moriarty v Brooks, old original case, possibly unreliable)
C v Eisenhower (1984)
Red blood cell bursting in eye not enough, must be breaking of the skin

Question 13

Grievous Bodily Harm

Answer 13

DPP v Smith (1961)

‘Really serious bodily harm’

Question 14

Maliciously means no more than reckless

Answer 14

Cunningham recklessness
Mowatt (1967)
It is not necessary to foresee the gravity of the harm, only needs to be some harm foreseen
Brady (2006)
Jumped off a balcony and paralysed woman, subjective test required

Question 15

Consent can be a defence in limited circumstances

Answer 15

A-G’s Ref (No 6 of 1980), [1981] QB 715
Street fight is actual bodily harm
Lord Lane at 719
‘Nothing which we have said is intended to cast doubt on the accepted legality of properly conducted games and sports, lawful chastisement or correction, reasonable surgical interference, dangerous exhibitions, etc. These apparent exceptions can be justified as involving the exercise of a legal right, in the case of chastisement or correction, or as needed in the public interest, in the other cases’
Jones (1986)
School boys throwing other boys in the air with the intention of catching them is “horseplay” which can be consent with genuine belief that there was consent
Aitken (1992)
Fire suits not fire proof, the victim gave consent as a willing participant
Barnes (2005)
Heavy tackle in football, criminal proceedings should be reserved for sufficiently grave conduct

Question 16

BDSM

Answer 16

Donovan (1934)
Consented to violent sexual intercourse but injury was much worse than anticipated; no defence of consent
Brown (1994)
‘Violence’ ‘cruelty’ ‘degradation’ per Lord Temple
Lord Mustill valued private sexual relations and private morality, not within the scope of the 1861 Act
Wilson (1996)
Branded wife, consent allowed in the context of married consensual activity
Emmett (1999)
Woman had plastic bag tied over head and have her breasts set on fire, distinguished as no “loving” element

Question 17

Human Rights Act

Answer 17

Consent does not fall with the scope of Article 8 (Laskey et al v UK)

Question 18

Dica (Mohammed) No 1 (2004)

Answer 18

Had sexual relationships when he had HIV, consent only a defence when they know of the HIV not when they consent to sex