Non-fatal Offences Against The Person

Question 1

Where are the main offences set out?

Answer 1

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861

Question 2

Where are the non fatals found?

Answer 2

S.39 of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988, assault and battery are the least serious non fatals on their own but make up an essential element of the more serious of ABH.

Question 3

Actus Reus of an assault?

Answer 3

“This must be some act (or words) that causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force👉🏾 FAGAN V METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER 1968

Victim does not have to be scared they must just apprehend violence.

Question 4

IRELAND?

Answer 4

D made a series of silent phone calls to V
H/L upheld his conviction of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The victim apprehended immediate violence as they didn’t know where D was calling from, they did not know what D was going to do next.

Question 5

What was ‘immediate’ said to mean in IRELAND?

Answer 5

“In a minute or two”

Question 6

Extreme approach taken in CONSTANZA?

Answer 6

D sent 800 letters to the victim. Court held that two further letters which were interpreted as threats could be constitute as an assault as they caused apprehension of violence “at some point not excluding the immediate future”

Question 7

what did the court interpret “immediate” as?

Answer 7

This case appeared to demonstrate that the courts would interpret the word ‘immediate’ in a way any necessary to get a conviction where they considered appropriate.

Question 8

What do the rulings in CONSTANZA & IRELAND show?

Answer 8

Willingness on the part of judges to take a liberal approach to the wording in the ancient OAPA, and are therefore to be welcomed.

Parliament has since intervened with the PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997 and PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012. The 2012 act makes stalking a specific offence with 2 levels of seriousness and means the judges will no longer have to strain the meaning of existing words in the OAPA.

Question 9

Mens Rea of an assault?

Answer 9

Either an intention to cause another to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence or recklessness as to whether such apprehension is caused.

Question 10

Actus Reus of battery?

Answer 10

Application of unlawful force on another. (Can involve the slightest touching as held in COLLINS V WILLOCK)

The force applied does not have to do involve personal contact.

Question 11

What is the mens rea of battery?

Answer 11

Either an intention to apply unlawful force or reckless as to whether such forced will be applied.
(VENNA)

Question 12

Actus Reus of s.47 ABH

Answer 12

First requires an assault or battery. This is despite the fact that the 1861 act only uses the term ‘assault’ and is the first evidence of the poor quality of the legislation.

Question 13

ROBERTS:

Answer 13

V jumped out of a moving car after D made sexual advances towards her. She suffered grazing and concussion.

A reasonable person could have foreseen victims response to the assault. Conviction upheld on appeal. Also called the ‘Daftness’ test used to determine whether the actions of a fleeing victim will break the legal chain of causation.

Question 14

CHAN-FOOK

Answer 14

The word ‘actual’ was said to indicate that the injury ‘should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant’

Question 15

Diagnosed psychiatric injury qualifies as bodily harm?

Answer 15

IRELAND - in this case it was recognised psychiatric condition could be classed as actual bodily harm. Inflicted over the phone.

Question 16

Mens Rea of ABH

Answer 16

D must intent of be subjectively reckless as to whether V apprehend of is subjected to unlawful force.

Question 17

MALICI US WOUNDING AND MALICIOUSLY INFLICTING GBH

S.20 OAPA🤐

Answer 17

Triable either way and liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

Question 18

Actus Reus of s.20?

Answer 18

Inflicted GBH or wounded the victim.

To create 2 separate offences in one clause is poor drafting. Especially as there is no description of the AR of either.

Question 19

What was GBH held to mean and in which case?

Answer 19

DPP V SMITH - “really serious harm”

But this did not have to be life threatening unlike ABH it does not require a technical assault or battery.

Question 20

Later in SAUNDERS what was decided?

Answer 20

The word ‘really’ was not essential as really serious and serious meant the same thing.

Question 21

BURSTOW

Answer 21

Seriously psychiatric injury can be GBH

D became obsessed with V. He started to stalk her. Convicted for this conduct but after his release he continued. His behaviour caused V to suffer severe depression, insomnia and panic attacks. Convicted of s.20

Question 22

What did the meaning to the word ‘inflict’ in s.20 do?

Answer 22

Caused considerable difficulty. It had been thought that to ‘inflict’ injury requires some kind of physical force. Rules out deliberately infecting someone with a disease.

Question 23

Ruling in BURSTOW?

Answer 23

H/L stated that s.20 could be committed where no physical force has been applied (directly or indirectly)

Question 24

What did the ruling in BURSTOW do?

Answer 24

Causing someone to suffer serious harm by infecting them with a disease now amounts to an infliction of harm under s.20.

Question 25

DICA

Answer 25

Man who had HIV persuaded 2 women to consent to unprotected sex on more than one occasion without telling them of his condition. Both caught the disease. C/A squashed the conviction on the issue of consent and ordered a retrial at which he was convicted again.

Question 26

Wounding?

Answer 26

'Requires a breaking of the skin' | EISENHOWER it was held that broken blood vessels in V's eye didn't amount as a wound.

Question 27

Mens Rea of s.20?

Answer 27

Defined by the word 'maliciously' | In CUNNINGHAM it was stated for the purpose of the 1861 act maliciously meant 'intentionally or recklessly'

Question 28

MOWATT

Answer 28

It was held of D foresaw the possibility of some physical harm occurring to a person. D does not have to foresee that it would be a wound or serious injury.