Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person Flashcards
“GBH” mean “really serious harm”
DPP v SMITH
A wound requires both layers of skin to be broken
MORIARTY v BROOKES
No matter how serious internal bleeding, not a wound if no skin broken
EISENHOWER
Psychiatric harm can be GBH if serious enough
R v BURSTOW
MR - s.20 - “Maliciously” do harm - Intention or recklessness to do SOME harm (ABH)
R v SAVAGE; R v PARMENTER
ABH = any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort of the victim
R v MILLER
ABH = Any psychiatric harm if recognised condition
R v IRELAND
Physical Assault
Infliction of Unlawful Force Upon Victim
Physical Assault - Indirect Infliction - Punching baby’s mother caused her to drop baby was assault on the baby
HAYSTEAD v CC of DERBYSHIRE
Simple Assault
Acts/Words which Cause V to Apprehend the Immediate Infliction of Unlawful Force
Simple assault can be acts or words
R v IRELAND
Simple assault requires only apprehension of infliction of immediate unlawful personal force
FAGAN v MET POLICE
Simple Assault - Only need to fear assault could occur immediately
R v BURSTOW
Simple Assualt - A conditional threat is also an assault
READ v COKER
Simple Assault - MR - Intention or Recklessness as to V’s apprehension of unlawful personal force
R v VENNA
CPS Charging Standards GBH
- permanent disability
- loss of sensory function
- major break
- big blood loss
- lengthy treatment/incapacity
CPS Charging Standards ABH
- minor cuts (where treatement)
- extensive bruising
- temp loss of consciousness
- minor fractures
- broken nose
Defence - Generally the defence of consent is only when no harm is done or intended
COLLINS v WILCOCK
Defence - Attorney General Ref 6 of 1980 exceptions to general consent rule
- Sport
- Surgery
- Tattooing, Piercing
- Dangerous exhibition (circus)
Defence - Sport within the rules or spirit of the game counts as a form of consent
R v BARNES
Defence - Tattooing, piercing and circumcision are lawful acts
R v BROWN
Defence - As per R v BROWN - Consent is invalid if…
- Corrupts young men
- Spreads disease
- Excessive level of pain
- Breeds and glorifies cruelty
Defence - No consent if risk of harm is Beyond Merely Transient and Trivial
R v EMMETT
Defence - Reasonable Chastisement - A parent or person in loco parentis can use reasonable force to discipline a child
R v HOPLEY
Defence - Duress
R v GRAHAM
- D subjectively believed he was threatened with death/serious injury (self or another)
- (Objective) Person of reasonable firmness of D’s Age/Gender would have given way
Defence - Self-defence can be pre-emptive
R v BIRD
Defence - Discretion in decision-making allowed in the hear of the moment
R v PALMER
Defence - A person is judged in self-defence on the facts as they honestly (not reasonably) believe them to be
R v Williams
Defence - Mistake due to voluntary intoxication negatives self-defence
R v O’GRADY
not a defence to Basic Intent Crimes - DPP v MAJEWSKI
Defence - Mistake due to psychiatric ailment negatives self-defence
R v MARTIN
