Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person

Question 1

Where, in statute, is technical assault acknowledged as an offence?

Answer 1

Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39

Question 2

Is technical assault a common law offence?

Answer 2

Yes

Question 3

What are the AR and MR requirements of technical assault?

Answer 3

AR: D must make V apprehend the application of imminent force
MR: D must intentionally or recklessly cause V to apprehend the infliction of immediate force

Question 4

Which case established that words, gestures and silent phone calls could constitute an assault?

Answer 4

Ireland; Burstow [1997]

Question 5

Which case established that a conditional threat could amount to an assault?

Answer 5

Read v Coker

Question 6

In which case did the D standing the opposite side of V’s window, which he would have to break to inflict force on her, could constitute an assault?

Answer 6

Smith v Chief Superintendent Woking Police Station

Question 7

In which case was the immediacy requirement for assault satisfied as V may fear silent caller’s arrival at her door may be imminent?

Answer 7

Ireland; Burstow [1997]

Question 8

In which stalking case was it held that although V had received 800 letters, V was assaulted in last two as she suffered a fear of violence at some time not excluding the immediate future?

Answer 8

Constanza

Question 9

In which case was it held that where V is purely anxious and suffers a breakdown without fearing the imminent application of force it would not amount to an assault?

Answer 9

Cox

Question 10

Which case confirmed that Cunningham recklessness applies to assault?

Answer 10

Spratt

Question 11

What is the Cunningham recklessness test in relation to assault?

Answer 11

D must have foreseen that he might have caused V to apprehend the immediate force and continue with act when unjustifiable to do so.

Question 12

In which case did the HL implicitly accept that Cunningham recklessness test applies to the MR of assault?

Answer 12

Savage; Parmenter

Question 13

Where in statute is battery acknowledged as an offence?

Answer 13

Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39

Question 14

Is battery a common law offence?

Answer 14

Yes

Question 15

What are the AR and MR requirements for battery?

Answer 15

AR: the application of unlawful personal force
MR: intention or recklessness as to the application of force on another

Question 16

Which case established that for battery, the touching must be hostile but is not equated with ill-will?

Answer 16

Wilson v Pringle [1986]

Question 17

Which case established that a battery can be created by an omission where D creates a dangerous situation? (E.g. Leaves syringe in pocket during police search)

Answer 17

Santana-Bermudez [2004]

Question 18

Which case confirms that a battery does not require the direct application of force?

Answer 18

Martin (1881)

Question 19

In which case did the court suggest that D could be liable for battery of child through indirect application of force where punched woman who dropped child and hit head?

Answer 19

Haystead [2000]

Question 20

Which case confirmed that for battery MR what must be proved is that D intentionally or recklessly applied force to another (and that Cunningham recklessness applies)?

Answer 20

Venna [1976]

Question 21

Which case confirmed that for battery, the test of recklessness for MR involves foresight of the risk that the complainant will be subjected to unlawful force and the subsequent taking of that risk?

Answer 21

D v DPP [2005]

Question 22

Where do you find the statute for the offence of Assault occasioning ABH?

Answer 22

S.47 Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861

Question 23

What are the AR and MR requirements of assault occasioning ABH?

Answer 23

AR: an assault or battery, occasioning (that causes), actual bodily harm
MR: intention or recklessness as to the assault or battery only

Question 24

Which case established that for ABH the injury “should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant”?

Answer 24

Chan-Fook [1994]

Question 25

In which case was a momentary loss of consciousness held to amount to ABH?

Answer 25

R v DPP [2003]

Question 26

In which case did the cutting off of a ponytail amount to ABH?

Answer 26

DPP v Smith [2006]

Question 27

In which case did the HL confirm that bodily harm includes recognisable psychiatric illness?

Answer 27

Ireland; Burstow [1997]

Question 28

Which case established that for psychiatric illness under ABH you will need to provide expert evidence?

Answer 28

Morris [1998]

Question 29

In which case concerning ABH was it said that a distinction is drawn between recognisable psychiatric illness (which amount to bodily harm) and psychological injuries e.g. Inability to sleep (which do not)?

Answer 29

Dhaliwal [2006]

Question 30

In which case did the HL confirm that for assault occasioning ABH the only MR requirement was that of the assault/battery? You do not need requirement of intention or foresight in respect of the injury caused by the assault/battery.

Answer 30

Savage; Parmenter [1992]

Question 31

Where do you find the statute defining the offence of Malicious wounding or inflicting GBH?

Answer 31

S.20 of OAPA 1861

Question 32

What are the AR and MR requirements of s.20 GBH?

Answer 32

AR: wounding or inflicting GBH
MR: intention or recklessness as to wound or the infliction of GBH

Question 33

In which case was it established that “a wound necessitates that the dermis and epidermis of the skin be broken”?

Answer 33

Moriarty v Brooks (1834)

Question 34

In which case was it established that GBH is “really serious bodily harm”?

Answer 34

DPP v Smith [1961]

Question 35

In which case was it said that what is really serious bodily harm may depend on the vulnerability of V e.g. Bruising could amount to GBH for an infant?

Answer 35

Bollom [2004]

Question 36

In which case was it held that inflict, under s.20 GBH, means cause? It also established that you do not need an assault/battery or application of force on V’s body under s.20 as psychiatric harm can be inflicted over the phone?

Answer 36

Ireland; Burstow [1997]

Question 37

In which case was a D liable for s.20 GBH for having unprotected sex and leading V to contract HIV?

Answer 37

Dica [2004]

Question 38

Which case established that s.20 MR requirement of maliciously means that a slightly modified form of Cunningham recklessness can apply? What is the modified test?

Answer 38

Mowatt [1967]

D need not foresee a wound or GBH, D need only foresee some physical harm, albeit of a minor character.

Question 39

Which case confirmed that for MR of s.20 GBH D need only foresee some harm, as stated in Mowatt?

Answer 39

Savage; Parmenter [1992]

Question 40

Where do you find the statutory offence of GBH with intent?

Answer 40

S.18 OAPA 1861

Question 41

Which type of GBH is more serious?

Answer 41

S.18 is more serious as it results in a life sentence. S.20 results in max 5 years sentence.

Question 42

What are the AR and MR requirements of s.18 GBH?

Answer 42

AR: wounding or causing GBH
MR: maliciousness (regarding wound/GBH) and intent (to cause GBH or resist/prevent lawful detention)

Question 43

What does the s.18 MR requirement of maliciously mean if prosecuting under intent to cause GBH?

Answer 43

Intent to cause GBH or virtual certainty

Question 44

What does the s.18 MR requirement of maliciously mean if prosecuting for resisting arrest? What is the authority?

Answer 44

Means must be proved that D foresaw some harm.

Authority: Morrison (1989)

Question 45

Which case established that for s.18 GBH intent bears the same meaning as in Nedrick?

Answer 45

Purcell (1986)

Question 46

What is the intention requirement as laid down in Nedrick, and applied to s.18 GBH?

Answer 46

D must foresee the harm (GBH) and D must foresee as a virtual certainty. Only then can jury infer intention.