Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

Question 1

Fagan v MPC

Answer 1

Ratio: 1. An assault is committed when the accused ‘intentionally, or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. 2. Battery is the actual intended use of unlawful force to another person without his consent.

Question 2

R v Lamb

Answer 2

Ratio: For there to be an apprehension of personal violence, the defendant must cause the victim to believe that he can and will carry out the threat of force.

Facts: Two boys were playing with a gun thinking it was safe. Then one shot the other and he died. Court held that no assault had taken place as the victim did not fear violence as he thought the gun was safe.

Question 3

Logdon v DPP

Answer 3

Ratio: For there to be an apprehension of personal violence it is irrelevant whether the defendant actually has the means to carry out the threat

Facts: Defendant showed victim a pistol and said he would hold her hostage. It was a replica but the victim did not know this. Court held this was an assault.

Question 4

R v Wilson

Answer 4

Ratio: 1. Words can constitute an assault. 2.There can be an infliction of GBH without an assault. 3. For the purposes of s.18, ‘causing’ has the same meaning as ‘inflicting’.

Facts: The words ‘get the knives out’ were found to be an assault.

Question 5

R v Ireland; Burstow

Answer 5

Ratio: 1. Words can constitute an assault. 2. For the purpose of assault, ‘immediate’ means immediate future/imminent.

Question 6

Tuberville v Savage

Answer 6

Ratio: Words can negate an assault.

Facts: Defendant placed his hand on his sword and said: ‘if it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you’. Court held that his words negated the threat of putting his hand on his sword.

Question 7

R v Venna

Answer 7

Ratio: 1. MR for assault is intention or recklessness

2. MR for battery is intention or recklessness

Question 8

R v Savage; Parmenter

Answer 8

Ratio: 1. Cunningham recklessness, set out in R v G is the test for recklessness. 2. For s.47 no Mens Rea is required for the ABH, only the MR for battery is required. 3. To form the MR for s.20 it is only necessary to foresee ‘some harm’.

Question 9

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 9

Ratio: For battery, force includes the merest touching

Question 10

R v Thomas

Answer 10

Ratio: For battery, force can be through clothes

Question 11

Faulkner v Talbot

Answer 11

Ratio: To constitute battery, the force doesn’t need to be hostile, rude or aggressive

Question 12

R v Martin

Answer 12

Ratio: To constitute battery, the force doesn’t need to be applied directly.

Facts: Defendant closed doors of theatre and turned the lights off as people were about to leave. Panic ensued.

Question 13

DPP v K

Answer 13

Ratio: To constitute battery, the force doesn’t need to be applied directly

Facts: K poured acid into a hand drier. Another pupil then used the drier and suffered scarring from the acid. Court held this satisfied AR of battery. (Note: MR was not satisfied)

Question 14

DPP v Santana-Bermudez

Answer 14

Ratio: Battery can be constituted by omission

Facts: Defendant did not tell police officer that he had a hypodermic needle in his pocket. This pierced the officer when she searched him. Court held that he had created a danger which he had failed to avert.

Question 15

DPP v Little

Answer 15

Ratio: In the context of s.47 OAPA an assault means an assault or a battery.

Question 16

R v Miller

Answer 16

Ratio: ABH = ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim’. Must be more than transient or trifling.

Question 17

R v Chan-Fook

Answer 17

Ratio: 1. ABH = ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim’. 2. ABH can include psychiatric injury as long as it is a recognised clinical condition.

Question 18

T v DPP

Answer 18

Ratio: Momentary loss of consciousness was held to be capable of amounting to ABH

Question 19

DPP v Smith

Answer 19

Ratio: 1. Cutting hair can constitute a battery. 2. GBH = ‘really serious harm’

Facts: Defendant cut off victim’s ponytail and was held to be guilty of a battery as dead tissue was still part of the body.

Question 20

C (A minor) v Eishenhower

Answer 20

Ratio: A wound is a break in the continuity of both layers of the skin

Question 21

R v Saunders

Answer 21

Ratio: GBH = ‘serious harm’

Question 22

R v Bollom

Answer 22

Ratio: In deciding whether injuries sustained are grievous, jury should consider the effect of the injuries on the victim, taking into account the victim’s age and health. The jury can also consider the totality of the injuries.

Facts: Case concerned a baby with multiple cuts and bruises which individually did not constitute serious harm, but could amount to serious harm when taken together.

Question 23

R v Mowatt

Answer 23

Ratio: To form the MR for s.20, it is only necessary to foresee some harm

Question 24

R v Kennedy

Answer 24

Ratio: s.24 OAPA sets out 3 distinct offences:
• Administering to
• Causing to be administered
• Causing to be taken

Question 25

R v Gillard

Answer 25

Ratio: In the context of s.24/s.23 OAPA takes postulates ‘ingestion’ whilst administer covers anything which would bring a noxious substance into contact with the victim.

Facts: Spraying the victim in the face was held to be an example of administering.

Question 26

R v Hill

Answer 26

Ratio: To form the MR of s.24 it is sufficient to prove the defendant intended to injure, aggrieve or annoy either by the administration of the thing itself or some ulterior motive.

Question 27

R v Cato

Answer 27

Ratio: 1. For s.23, a noxious thing must be inherently harmful. 2. For s.23, there is no requirement to prove that the defendant was reckless or intended to endanger life or cause GBH.

Question 28

R v Marcus

Answer 28

Ratio: For s.24, a noxious thing = ‘hurtful, unwholesome or objectionable’. A thing can become noxious based on quantity given.