Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law > Non-fatal offences against the person > Flashcards

Non-fatal offences against the person Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What is the definition of assault?

A

An act by a D which causes the V to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force with intention or subjective recklessness as to whether fear is caused.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the actus reus of assault? in two parts

A

> an act

>which cause the V to apprehend infliction of immediate unlawful force

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What principle does the case of R v Constanza (1997) support and what are the facts?

A

Principle: that written words can constitute an assault.

Facts: D had written 800 letters last two letters interpreted by V as clear threats.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What case supports the principle that written words can constitute an assault?

A

R v Constanza (1997)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What principle does the case of R v Ireland (1997) support and what are the facts?

A

Principle: that silent telephone calls can constitute assault.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What principle does the case of Smith v Chief Superintendent Woking (1983) support and what are the facts?

A

Principle: Fear of what D would do next was sufficient for the actus reus of assault.

Facts: D looked through V’s bedroom window late at night.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What case supports the principle that silent telephone calls can constitute an assault?

A

R v Ireland (1997)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What case supports the principle that fear of what D would do next was sufficient for the actus reus of assault?

A

Smith v Chief Superintendent Woking (1983)

Facts: D looking through V garden window.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What principle does the case of Tuberville v Savage (1669) support and what are the facts?

A

Principle: Words can prevent an act from being an assault depending on the circumstances.

Facts: D placed hand on sword but uttered that he would not apply unlawful force in this circumstance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What case supports the principle of words can prevent an act from being an assault?

A

Tuberville v Savage (1669)

Facts: hand on weapon, saying ‘if it were not for assize time, I would not take such language from you’-D not liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the definition of ‘battery’?

A

The application of unlawful force to another person with intention to apply or recklessness as to whether it is applied.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the actus reus of battery?

A

The application of unlawful force to another person.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What 2 cases support the principle that force includes even the slightest touching?

A

1) Collins v Wilcock (1984) Woman wrongfully ‘grabbed’ by police
2) Wood v DPP (2008) Man wrongfully ‘grabbed’ by police

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What principle does the case of Collins v Wilcock (1984) support and what are the facts?

A

Principle: Any touching may be a battery, and always is if there was a physical restraint.

Facts: a police officer held a woman’s arm to prevent her walking away.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What principle does the case of Wood v DPP (2008) support and what are the brief facts?

A

Principle: Any touching may be considered a battery.
Facts: Police officer restrained Wood physically but was not arresting him-officer found to have committed battery.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What case supports the principle of a ‘continuing act’?

A

Fagan v Met Police Commissioner (1968)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What principle does the case of Fagan v Met Police Commissioner (1968) support and what are the brief facts?

A

Principle: A continuing act can constitute a battery as long as mens rea and actus reus have coincidence.

Facts: D parks on police officer’s foot by accident initially but then forms intention when D realises his act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What cases support the principle that an ‘indirect act’ can constitute a battery?

A

A) R v Martin (1881) Bar across theatre doorway causing injury in ensuing panic

B) DPP v K (1990) schoolboy hid acid in hand dryer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What principle does the case of R v Martin (1881) support and what are the brief facts?

A

Principle: ‘indirect act’ can constitute a battery.

Facts: D blocked doorway and caused panic in theatre-injuries occurred-convicted s20 OAPA

20
Q

What principle does the case of DPP v K (1990) support and what are the brief facts?

A

Principle: ‘indirect act’ can constitute a battery.

Facts: Schoolboy injures another person with sulphuric acid by hiding it in hand dryer-convicted s47 OAPA-mens rea held to be recklessness.

21
Q

What case supports the principle that an ‘omission’ can constitute a battery?

A

DPP v Santa Bermudez (2003)

Facts: D had needle in pocket and didn’t tell police officer who was searching him.

22
Q

What principle does the case of DPP v Santa Bermudez (2003) support and what are the brief facts?

A

Principle: that an omission can constitute a battery.

Facts: D failed to tell police officer that he had needle in pocket-officer injured when searching D.

23
Q

What case supports the principle that getting drunk is a reckless course of conduct and therefore sufficient for mens rea of battery?

A

DPP v Majewski (1976)

Facts: D attacked landlord of pub and police who were called-found to have sufficient mens rea as reckless course of conduct to get drunk.

24
Q

What principle does the case of DPP v Majewski (1976) support and what are the brief facts?

A

Principle: Getting drunk is a reckless course of conduct-sufficient for mens rea of battery.

Facts: D was heavily drunk and attacked landlord and police officers.

25
Q

What is the definition of ABH under s 47 OAPA 1861 and what case defines this?

A

Bruising also including momentary loss of consciousness (R(T) v DPP 2003)and psychiatric harm (Chan Fook 1994).
Case: Miller (1954)

26
Q

What case supports the principle that psychiatric harm can constitute ABH?

A

R v Chan Fook (1994)

27
Q

What principle does the case of R v Chan Fook (1994) support and what are the brief facts?

A

Principle: that psychiatric harm can constitute ABH

Facts: Landlord locked V in bedroom with threat of further violence.

28
Q

What case supports the principle that even a temporary loss of consciousness can constitute ABH?

A

T v DPP (2003)

29
Q

What principle does the case of T v DPP (2003) support and what are the brief facts?

A

Principle: that even a brief loss of consciousness can constitute ABH.

Facts: D knocked out V.

30
Q

What is the maximum sentence for s 47 OAPA (1861)?

A

5 years imprisonment (same as s 20 OAPA 1861)

31
Q

What is the definition of s 20 OAPA 1861?

A

Malicious wounding/ inflicting GBH

32
Q

What is the maximum sentence for s 20 OAPA (1861)?

A

5 years imprisonment (same as s 47 OAPA 1861)

33
Q

Actus reus of s 20 OAPA (1861)?

A
  • Wounded or

- inflicted GBH

34
Q

Mens rea of s 20 OAPA (1861)?

A
  • Intending some injury (but not serious) be caused or

- being reckless as to whether any injury was inflicted

35
Q

What is the definition of a wound with regards to s 20 OAPA (1861)?

A

‘Wound’ means a cut or break in the continuity of the skin including internal skin (inside of cheek) but not internal bleeding.

36
Q

Common assault and battery are what kind of offences?

A

Summary offences (with up to 6 months in prison)

37
Q

What Act and section provides that common assault and battery shall be summary offences and have a max 6 months in prison?

A

s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

38
Q

What is the significance of s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988?

A

Provides that common assault and battery shall be

1) summary offence
2) max 6 months in prison

39
Q

What case provides that GBH is a break in the continuity of the skin?

Give brief facts

A

C v Eisenhower (1984)

Facts: Minor shot air rifle at another minor. Did not break skin-Not convicted under s18.

40
Q

What is s18 OAPA 1861?

A

D commits GBH with intent to do GBH or to resist unlawful arrest

41
Q

What is the maximum sentence for s18 OAPA 1861?

A

Life imprisonment

42
Q

What are the 2 main defences to assault and battery?

A

1) consent

2) self defence/prevention of crime

43
Q

What statute acknowledges the existence of assault and battery?

A

s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Sets out max punishment of 6 months or £5k fine.

44
Q

What act sets out the max punishment for common law assault and battery?

A

s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

6 months or £5k or both.

45
Q

What case shows that recklessness can constitute s18 OAPA 1861 if it involves injury to a police officer?

A

R v Morrison (1989)

Facts: police woman who had grabbed D was dragged through a window.

46
Q

R v Morrison (1989)

A

Example of: recklessness constituting s18 OAPA 1861 as it was resisting arrest.

Facts: police woman who had grabbed D was dragged through a window.

Criminal Law (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions