Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person Flashcards
Where, in statute, is technical assault acknowledged as an offence?
Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39
Is technical assault a common law offence?
Yes
What are the AR and MR requirements of technical assault?
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
Which case established that words, gestures and silent phone calls could constitute an assault?
Ireland; Burstow [1997]
Which case established that a conditional threat could amount to an assault?
Read v Coker
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?
Smith v Chief Superintendent Woking Police Station
In which case was the immediacy requirement for assault satisfied as V may fear silent caller’s arrival at her door may be imminent?
Ireland; Burstow [1997]
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?
Constanza
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?
Cox
Which case confirmed that Cunningham recklessness applies to assault?
Spratt
What is the Cunningham recklessness test in relation to assault?
D must have foreseen that he might have caused V to apprehend the immediate force and continue with act when unjustifiable to do so.
In which case did the HL implicitly accept that Cunningham recklessness test applies to the MR of assault?
Savage; Parmenter
Where in statute is battery acknowledged as an offence?
Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39
Is battery a common law offence?
Yes
What are the AR and MR requirements for battery?
AR: the application of unlawful personal force
MR: intention or recklessness as to the application of force on another
Which case established that for battery, the touching must be hostile but is not equated with ill-will?
Wilson v Pringle [1986]
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)
Santana-Bermudez [2004]
Which case confirms that a battery does not require the direct application of force?
Martin (1881)
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?
Haystead [2000]
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)?
Venna [1976]
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?
D v DPP [2005]
Where do you find the statute for the offence of Assault occasioning ABH?
S.47 Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861
What are the AR and MR requirements of assault occasioning ABH?
AR: an assault or battery, occasioning (that causes), actual bodily harm
MR: intention or recklessness as to the assault or battery only
Which case established that for ABH the injury “should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant”?
Chan-Fook [1994]
In which case was a momentary loss of consciousness held to amount to ABH?
R v DPP [2003]
In which case did the cutting off of a ponytail amount to ABH?
DPP v Smith [2006]
In which case did the HL confirm that bodily harm includes recognisable psychiatric illness?
Ireland; Burstow [1997]
Which case established that for psychiatric illness under ABH you will need to provide expert evidence?
Morris [1998]
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)?
Dhaliwal [2006]
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.
Savage; Parmenter [1992]
Where do you find the statute defining the offence of Malicious wounding or inflicting GBH?
S.20 of OAPA 1861
What are the AR and MR requirements of s.20 GBH?
AR: wounding or inflicting GBH
MR: intention or recklessness as to wound or the infliction of GBH
In which case was it established that “a wound necessitates that the dermis and epidermis of the skin be broken”?
Moriarty v Brooks (1834)
In which case was it established that GBH is “really serious bodily harm”?
DPP v Smith [1961]
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?
Bollom [2004]
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?
Ireland; Burstow [1997]
In which case was a D liable for s.20 GBH for having unprotected sex and leading V to contract HIV?
Dica [2004]
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?
Mowatt [1967]
D need not foresee a wound or GBH, D need only foresee some physical harm, albeit of a minor character.
Which case confirmed that for MR of s.20 GBH D need only foresee some harm, as stated in Mowatt?
Savage; Parmenter [1992]
Where do you find the statutory offence of GBH with intent?
S.18 OAPA 1861
Which type of GBH is more serious?
S.18 is more serious as it results in a life sentence. S.20 results in max 5 years sentence.
What are the AR and MR requirements of s.18 GBH?
AR: wounding or causing GBH
MR: maliciousness (regarding wound/GBH) and intent (to cause GBH or resist/prevent lawful detention)
What does the s.18 MR requirement of maliciously mean if prosecuting under intent to cause GBH?
Intent to cause GBH or virtual certainty
What does the s.18 MR requirement of maliciously mean if prosecuting for resisting arrest? What is the authority?
Means must be proved that D foresaw some harm.
Authority: Morrison (1989)
Which case established that for s.18 GBH intent bears the same meaning as in Nedrick?
Purcell (1986)
What is the intention requirement as laid down in Nedrick, and applied to s.18 GBH?
D must foresee the harm (GBH) and D must foresee as a virtual certainty. Only then can jury infer intention.
