Non fatal offences against the person

Question 1

Which act governs assault and battery?

Answer 1

s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Question 2

What is the actus reus for assault?

Answer 2

D causes V to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence.

Question 3

R v Ireland shows

Answer 3

silence is enough for assault - silent phone calls

Question 4

R v Constanza shows

Answer 4

silence is enough for assault - 800 letters

Question 5

Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police defines

Answer 5

immediate - “some time in the near future”

Question 6

Tuberville v Savage shows

Answer 6

Words can negate an assault. - hand on sword

Question 7

R v lamb shows

Answer 7

V must apprehend violence for assault

Question 8

What is the mens rea of assault?

Answer 8

D has intention or is subjectively reckless that his/ her conduct will cause v to apprehend violence.

Question 9

What is the actus reus for battery?

Answer 9

D inflicts unlawful personal violence on V, direct or indirectly.

Question 10

DPP v K shows

Answer 10

Indirect battery

Question 11

R v Thomas shows

Answer 11

Touching clothing is enough for battery

Question 12

Collins v Willcock shows

Answer 12

mere touching is enough for battery

Question 13

What is the mens rea for battery?

Answer 13

D has intention or is subjectively reckless in inflicting violence.

Question 14

What governs assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

Answer 14

s47 Offences against the persons Act 1861

Question 15

What is the actus reus for assaut occasioning actual bodily harm?

Answer 15

D has actus reus of assault or battery plus some additional minor harm.

Question 16

What does the case of Miller define?

Answer 16

Abh is any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of V.

Question 17

What does the case of Chan Fook show?

Answer 17

Abh includes minor psychological harm.

Question 18

DPP v Smith shows?

Answer 18

Cutting hair is enough for abh.

Question 19

T v DPP shows

Answer 19

Unconsciousness is enough. for abh

Question 20

What is the mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

Answer 20

D has the mens rea of assault or battery only no mens rea needed for abh.

Question 21

What act governs malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm?

Answer 21

s20 Offences against the person act 1861

Question 22

What is the actus reus for s20?

Answer 22

D either maliciously wounds or inflicts gbh on V with or without a weapon.

Question 23

What does the case of Eisenhover define?

Answer 23

A wound as “breaking all layers of the skin”.

Question 24

What does R v Burstow show?

Answer 24

Gbh can include serious psychological harm.

Question 25

What does DPP v Smith define gbh as?

Answer 25

No more and no less than really serious harm.

Question 26

Which case shows spreading a disease is gbh?

Answer 26

R v dica

Question 27

What is the mens rea for s20?

Answer 27

D has intention or is subjectively reckless in causing V some harm.

Question 28

Which act governs malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent?

Answer 28

s18 offences against the person act 1861

Question 29

What is the actus reus for s18?

Answer 29

same as s20

Question 30

What is the mens rea for s18?

Answer 30

D has intention to case serious harm to v.

Question 31

Intent to cause harm is shown in which case?

Answer 31

Belfon

Question 32

In which case did the D not foresee the risk of any harm to his young baby?

Answer 32

Parmenter

Question 33

Which case shows that a series of minor injuries can amount to gbh?

Answer 33

R v Brown and Stratton

Question 34

What is the outcome if D pleads the defence of consent?

Answer 34

D is acquitted.

Question 35

What is the definition of defence?

Answer 35

V agreed to the risk of injury.

Question 36

What is the general rule for consent?

Answer 36

Can not consent to abh or gbh

Question 37

Case which shows consent was not genuine?

Answer 37

Burrell v Harmer - tattooing 2 boys aged 12 and 13.

Question 38

Consent to tattooing and branding?

Answer 38

R v Wilson - D may consent to both abh and gbh in connection with tattooing and branding.

Question 39

Consent to physical sports?

Answer 39

- can be a defence providing the harm is "ordinarily incidental" to the game. - not a defence in "off the ball" cases - R v Bullinghurst D punched other player in unprovoked attack.

Question 40

Consent in rough and undisciplined play?

Answer 40

R v jones

Question 41

Adults can consent to both abh and gbh in rough play?

Answer 41

R v Aitken

Question 42

Sado masochism

Answer 42

Not a "good reason" - R v Brown and others.