Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

Question 1

What is the actus reus for the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.18?

Answer 1

Wound or inflict grievous bodily harm.

Question 2

What is the definition of grievous bodily harm?

Answer 2

According to DPP v Smith it is really serious harm.

Question 3

Can psychiatric harm constitute grievous bodily harm?

Answer 3

According to Burstow if really serious and a recognised condition.

Question 4

What is the definition of wound?

Answer 4

According to Moriarty v Brookes it is breaking of both layers of the skin/drawing blood.

Question 5

What does not constitute a wound?

Answer 5

According to Eisenhower bruising or internal bleeding.

Question 6

What is the mens rea for the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.18?

Answer 6

Intent to cause grievous bodily harm; or

Recklessness as to causing some harm; and intent to resist/prevent arrest

Question 7

What is the actus reus for the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.20?

Answer 7

Wound or inflict grievous bodily harm.

Question 8

What is the mens rea for the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.20?

Answer 8

Maliciously - intention or recklessness as to causing some harm.

Question 9

What is the actus reus for the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.47?

Answer 9

Simple/physical assault causing actual bodily harm.

Question 10

What is the definition of actual bodily harm?

Answer 10

According to R v Miller any hurt/injury calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of V.

Question 11

Can psychiatric harm constitute actual bodily harm?

Answer 11

According to R v Ireland it can if it is recognised condition.

Question 12

What is the mens rea for the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.47?

Answer 12

Intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful personal force.

Question 13

What is the actus reus for the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39, battery?

Answer 13

Infliction of unlawful personal force upon V

Question 14

What case demonstrates that infliction may be indirect?

Answer 14

Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire; a dog was set upon V

Question 15

What is the mens rea for the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39, battery?

Answer 15

Intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful force.

Question 16

What is the actus reus for the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39, common assault?

Answer 16

Acts or words that cause V to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force.

Question 17

What case demonstrated that V need only fear that force could occur immediately?

Answer 17

R v Burstow

Question 18

What is the mens rea for the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39, common assault?

Answer 18

Intention or recklessness as to V apprehending such force.

Question 19

What are the CPS Charging Standards for grievous bodily harm?

Answer 19

permanent disability/loss of sensory function, more than minor breaks, substantial loss of blood (usually requiring transfusion), injuries resulting in lengthy treatment/incapacity.

Question 20

What are the CPS Charging Standards for actual bodily harm?

Answer 20

minor cuts (where medical treatment required), extensive bruising, temporary loss of consciousness, minor fractures, broken nose.

Question 21

Is consent a valid defence for any offences against the person?

Answer 21

Only where no harm caused or intended, Collins v Wilcock.

Question 22

What are the exceptions to the defence of consent established by A-G’s reference No.6 1980?

Answer 22

properly conducted games and sports,
lawful chastisement,
reasonable surgical interference,
dangerous exhibitions,
cosmetic enhancements, or
horseplay

Question 23

What case allows the defence of consent to lawful activities?

Answer 23

According to R v Brown activities such as tattooing, piercing, circumcision, provided:
there is knowledge of the nature and quality of the act (R v Tabassum);
there is genuine belief in consent (R v Jones); and
there must have been consent to the actual risks involved (R v Dica; R v Konzani)

Question 24

In R v Brown what could invalidate consent?

Answer 24

if:
there is a risk of ‘corrupting young me;, spreading disease or the level of pain getting out of control;
the acts ‘breed and glorify cruelty’; or
it is within the public interest to criminalise the act.

Question 25

In which case did the public interest argument fail invalidate consent?

Answer 25

R v Wilson: V found to have consented to D branding her buttocks

Question 26

Which case established that consent will no be valid where the realistic risk of harm is beyond the transient or trivial injury?

Answer 26

R v Emmett

Question 27

What is the definition of self-defence?

Answer 27

D used reasonable force

in the circumstances as he believed them to be

Question 28

Which case states self-defence may be pre-emptive?

Answer 28

R v Bird

Question 29

Which case established that discretion in decision-making allowed in the heat of the moment when considering ‘reasonable force’?

Answer 29

Palmer v R

Question 30

Which case established that D is judged on the facts he has honestly believed them to be, even if this was unreasonable or mistaken?

Answer 30

R v Williams (Gladstone)

Question 31

Can a person rely on self-defence if voluntarily intoxicated?

Answer 31

Yes, but judged by the reasonableness of a sober man’s standards.

Question 32

What is the definition of reasonable chastisement?

Answer 32

Valid defence for parents/those in loco parentis, they can use reasonable force to discipline their children. Established by r v Hopley

Question 33

R v Graham established that D must establish what to rely on duress as a defence?

Answer 33

D reasonably believes he is threatened with death or serious injury to himself/another; and
a person or reasonable firmness of D’s age and gender would have given way to threats as D did.