Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Flashcards
What is the actus reus for the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.18?
Wound or inflict grievous bodily harm.
What is the definition of grievous bodily harm?
According to DPP v Smith it is really serious harm.
Can psychiatric harm constitute grievous bodily harm?
According to Burstow if really serious and a recognised condition.
What is the definition of wound?
According to Moriarty v Brookes it is breaking of both layers of the skin/drawing blood.
What does not constitute a wound?
According to Eisenhower bruising or internal bleeding.
What is the mens rea for the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.18?
Intent to cause grievous bodily harm; or
Recklessness as to causing some harm; and intent to resist/prevent arrest
What is the actus reus for the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.20?
Wound or inflict grievous bodily harm.
What is the mens rea for the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.20?
Maliciously - intention or recklessness as to causing some harm.
What is the actus reus for the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.47?
Simple/physical assault causing actual bodily harm.
What is the definition of actual bodily harm?
According to R v Miller any hurt/injury calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of V.
Can psychiatric harm constitute actual bodily harm?
According to R v Ireland it can if it is recognised condition.
What is the mens rea for the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.47?
Intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful personal force.
What is the actus reus for the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39, battery?
Infliction of unlawful personal force upon V
What case demonstrates that infliction may be indirect?
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire; a dog was set upon V
What is the mens rea for the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39, battery?
Intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful force.
What is the actus reus for the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39, common assault?
Acts or words that cause V to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force.
What case demonstrated that V need only fear that force could occur immediately?
R v Burstow
What is the mens rea for the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39, common assault?
Intention or recklessness as to V apprehending such force.
What are the CPS Charging Standards for grievous bodily harm?
permanent disability/loss of sensory function, more than minor breaks, substantial loss of blood (usually requiring transfusion), injuries resulting in lengthy treatment/incapacity.
What are the CPS Charging Standards for actual bodily harm?
minor cuts (where medical treatment required), extensive bruising, temporary loss of consciousness, minor fractures, broken nose.
Is consent a valid defence for any offences against the person?
Only where no harm caused or intended, Collins v Wilcock.
What are the exceptions to the defence of consent established by A-G’s reference No.6 1980?
properly conducted games and sports, lawful chastisement, reasonable surgical interference, dangerous exhibitions, cosmetic enhancements, or horseplay
What case allows the defence of consent to lawful activities?
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)
In R v Brown what could invalidate consent?
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.
In which case did the public interest argument fail invalidate consent?
R v Wilson: V found to have consented to D branding her buttocks
Which case established that consent will no be valid where the realistic risk of harm is beyond the transient or trivial injury?
R v Emmett
What is the definition of self-defence?
D used reasonable force
in the circumstances as he believed them to be
Which case states self-defence may be pre-emptive?
R v Bird
Which case established that discretion in decision-making allowed in the heat of the moment when considering ‘reasonable force’?
Palmer v R
Which case established that D is judged on the facts he has honestly believed them to be, even if this was unreasonable or mistaken?
R v Williams (Gladstone)
Can a person rely on self-defence if voluntarily intoxicated?
Yes, but judged by the reasonableness of a sober man’s standards.
What is the definition of reasonable chastisement?
Valid defence for parents/those in loco parentis, they can use reasonable force to discipline their children. Established by r v Hopley
R v Graham established that D must establish what to rely on duress as a defence?
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.
