Non Fatal Offences Against the Person

Question 1

What are the NFOAPs?

Answer 1

Assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, malicious wounding or maliciously inflicting GBH, wounding of causing GBH with intent, administering a noxious thing, administering a noxious thing so as to endanger life

Question 2

What is assault

Answer 2

Fagan v MPC

An act which intentionally, or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence

Question 3

AR for assauly

Answer 3

An act causing a person to apprehend infliction of immediate and unlawful personal violence

Question 4

Assault: What is an act?

Answer 4

Using words (R v Wilson - get out the knives)
or
silence (R v Ireland)

However, words can also negate an assault (Tuberville v Savage)

Question 5

Assault: apprehend?

Answer 5

In the Oxford dictionary defines it as ‘understand’ or ‘perceive’

The D must cause the victim to BELIEVE he will carry out the threat (R v Lamb, russian roulette).
It irrelevant whether he CAN carry out the threat (Logdon v DPP, gun in draw)

Question 6

Assault - unlawful?

Answer 6

Must be no consent, self-defence or necessity

Question 7

Assault - immediate?

Answer 7

No threat of immediate violence (Tuberville v Savage).

Fear dominates emotions, rationally cannot apprehend what will realistically happen next (Ireland/Burstow, Smith v Chief Supt Woking Police Station - stalking outside window).

Threatening to inflict future harm is unlikely to constitute an assault (Thomas v NUM)
Hand-delivered letters imply he could be nearby (R v Constanza)

Question 8

Assault - personal violence?

Answer 8

Ireland/Burstow - physical violence.

Question 9

Assault - MR

Answer 9

Intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force (R v Venna)

Question 10

Assault - MR - intention

Answer 10

given its ordinary meaning of aim or purpose (R v Maloney)

Question 11

Ommission - general rule and case

Answer 11

R v Smith (William) - “An omission, without a duty, will not create an offence”

R v Gibbons and Proctor - duty to feed child so omission not okay

Question 12

Assault - MR - recklessness

Answer 12

Cunningham recklessness test (R v Savage)

A person is reckless if:

They are subjectively aware of a risk at the time they commit the offence,

and

Unreasonably went on to take the risk in the circumstances

Question 13

Battery - what is it?

Answer 13

Battery is the actual application of unlawful force to another person without their consent (Fagan v MPC)

Question 14

Battery - AR

Answer 14

the unlawful application of force (Ireland / Burstow)

Question 15

Battery - AR - application of force

Answer 15

The merest touching is sufficient (Collins v Wilcock)

Contact through clothing is sufficient (R v Thomas)

There is no requirement that the application of force be hostile, rude or aggressive (Faulkner v Talbot)

The force may be applied indirectly (Haystead v DPP (punch drop baby); DPP v K (acid))

Question 16

Battery - AR - unlawful?

Answer 16

Ordinary, everyday contact is not unlawful (Collins v Wilcock)

Question 17

Battery - MR

Answer 17

Intentionally or reckless applying force (R v Venna)

Question 18

Battery - continuing act

Answer 18

If, for example, at the initial moment of application there is consent but this is later withdraw coincidence of the AR and MR can be established by using the continuing act theory (Fagan v MPC)

Question 19

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm s47 - AR - what constitutes assault?

Answer 19

Assault or battery - DPP v Little. Must then establish AR and MR of either A or B.

Question 20

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - AR - occasioning?

Answer 20

The D’s act must cause actual bodily harm in both fact and law (R v Smith)

DPP v Santana-Bermudez - needle in pocket.

Question 21

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - AR - occasioning - factual causation?

Answer 21

‘but for’ the D’s act the victim would not have suffered ABH (R v White)

Question 22

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - AR - occasioning - legal causation?

Answer 22

The D must be the operating and substantial cause of the harm (R v Pagett)

It will be the substantial cause if it has made more than a slight or trifling contribution to the harm (R v Kimsey; R v Cato)
The act need not be the sole cause of the harm (R v Benge)

The action will be the operating cause if there is no valid novus actus interveniens

Question 23

What are the novus actus interveniens?

Answer 23

The thin skull rule
The D must take his victim as he finds him (R v Hayward). He will, therefore be responsible for the full extent of the harm he causes

Medical negligence
Medical negligence generally won’t break the chain of causation (R v Smith)
It must be so potent and independent of the D’s actions as to render the D’s contribution insignificant (R v Cheshire)

Refusal of medical treatment will not break the chain (R v Holland)

Suicide
Generally will not break the chain of causation if the original wound is still the operating and substantial cause of the death (R v Dear)
Exception: if the suicide is unconnected to the original attack

Acts of the victim
The response must be reasonably foreseeable, it must be proportionate to the threat, and must have be one that could be reasonably expected (R v Williams & Davies)
The victim’s characteristics may be taken into account when considering the range of possible responses

For escape cases it must be reasonably foreseeable that the victim would attempt to escape in the way he did (R v Mackie)
The escape will not be reasonably foreseeable if the action is so daft that no reasonable person could have been expected to foresee it (R v Roberts)

Acts of a third party will only break the chain if they are ‘free, deliberate and informed’ (R v Paget)

Question 24

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - AR - actual bodily harm?

Answer 24

‘any hurt or injury interfering with the health or comfort of the victim (R v Miller), or not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant (R v Chan-Fook).

It must be more than trifling (R v Miller) – this is a low threshold.

Question 25

Examles of ‘actual bodily harm’

Answer 25

Temporary loss of consciousness / sensory function (T v DPP)

Recognised psychiatric injury, must be more than fear or distress (R v Chan-Fook)

Cutting off someone’s hair (DPP v Smith)

Question 26

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - MR

Answer 26

The MR must be that of either assault or battery relied upon for the AR

No need to show intention or recklessness to cause ABH (R v Savage; Parmenter)

Question 27

Malicious Wounding or inflicting GBH - s20 - AR

Answer 27

Unlawful wounding or inflicting GBH

Question 28

Malicious Wounding or maliciously inflicting GBH - AR - wounding

Answer 28

Both layers of skin must be broken (C (a minor) v Eisenhower).

Must cause the wound in both law and fact

Question 29

Malicious Wounding or maliciously inflicting GBH - AR - inflicting

Answer 29

Applies when GBH, normal causation for wounding.

No need for an assault (R v Wilson) to be committed first (R v Burstow)

Includes infecting another person with a sexually transmitted disease (R v Dica) regardless of whether they consent to the infection or not (R v Konzani)

Question 30

Malicious Wounding or maliciously inflicting GBH - AR - GBH

Answer 30

GBH has been defined as serious (R v Saunders - ‘really’ redundant) or really serious harm (DPP v Smith)

When determining GBH, R v Bollam indicates the victim’s age and health, or the total harm caused by all the injuries combined may be considered

Includes medically recognised psychiatric injury (R v Ireland)

Question 31

Malicious Wounding or maliciously inflicting GBH - MR

Answer 31

Maliciously intending or being reckless as to causing some harm (R v Savage; Parmenter)

There is no requirement that extent of harm was foreseen, any kind of harm (R v Mowatt)

SOME harm, not necessarily serious - Cunningham

Question 32

Wounding or Causing GBH with intent (s 18) - AR

Answer 32

Unlawful wounding or inflicting GBH

Question 33

Wounding or Causing GBH with intent (s 18) - MR

Answer 33

D must intend to cause GBH

This means his aim or purpose (R v Maloney) must be to cause serious harm (R v Saunders)

Question 34

s24 - AR

Answer 34

Unlawfully administering a poisonous, destructive or noxious thing (statute)

Question 35

Administer?

Answer 35

R v Kennedy outlines 3 different offences of how to administer:

• Administering to personally
• Causing to be administered to (getting someone else to do it)
• Causing to be taken (deceiving them or putting someone in a situation where they have no option but to take it in)

R v Gillard defines administering as bring the noxious thing into contact with the victim’s body

Includes spraying fluid or vapour. There is no need for the substance to enter the body

Question 36

24 - AR - Poison, destructive or noxious thing

Answer 36

Noxious is given a broad meaning; a substance is noxious if it is ‘hurtful, unwholesome or objectionable’ (R v Marcus). Also something that is harmless but is administered in sufficient quantity to injure, aggrieve or annoy

Question 37

24 - MR (highlighted in pink), intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy

Answer 37

R v Hill - intention can be direct, through the substance itself, or through a subsequent action which exploits the effects of the substance (i.e. administering sleeping pills in order to commit a rape)

Administering in order to search their belongings for evidence is not sufficient (R v Weatherall)

Question 38

23 - AR - what is poison, destructive or noxious thing

Answer 38

inherently dangerous (R v Cato)

Question 39

23 - AR - so as to endanger life or inflict GBH

Answer 39

The endangerment to life or infliction of GBH must be caused by the administration of the substance
But for + legal causation