Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Criminal > Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person > Flashcards

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Flashcards

1
Q

Fagan v MPC [1969]

Assault

A
  • Assault is committed when the accused ‘intentionally, or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’

AR

  • Must be apprehension of personal violence
  • Threat of Violence must be Unlawful
  • Threat of Violence must be Immediate

MR

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

R v Lamb [1967]

Assault

A

Defendant must cause the victim to believe he can and will carry out the threat of force.

  • Two teenagers playing Russian roulette with a revolver as a joke. Both assumed wouldn’t kill but gun went off and victim was shot. Victim did not apprehend violence so wasn’t assault.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Logdon v DPP [1976]

Assault

A

If the victim is caused to apprehend such a threat, it is irrelevant that the defendant does not in fact have the means to carry out that threat.

  • Defendant showed Customs & Excise officer a pistol in a drawer, saying it was loaded and declaring would hold her hostage. Did not matter the defendant knew it was a replica.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R v Wilson [1955]

Assault

A

Words alone can constitute an assault.

‘Get out the knives’

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

R v Ireland; Burstow [1998]

Assault

A

A thing said is also a thing done

  • Silent phone calls and heavy breathing constituted an assault

the victim must apprehend physical violence

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

Tuberville v Savage [1669]

Assault

A

Words can also negate assault

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

R v Venna [1976]

Assault

A

mens rea for assault is intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.

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

R v G [2003]

Recklessness

A
  1. did the accused foresee the risk of the outcome OR likelihood of such a risk arising ( Subjective)

AND

  1. Did he/she go on to take that risk AND (in light of their awareness?) was it objectively unreasonable to take that risk or was there some social utility in taking it?

The above is a composition of the tests from Cunningham and R v G

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

Fagan v MPC [1969]

Battery

A

Battery is the actual intended use of unlawful forced to another person without his consent

AR

  • Application of force
  • Force must be unlawful
  • Without consent

MR

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

Collins v Wilcock [1984]

Battery

A

Force includes the merest touching

  • Police constable grabbed a prostitute’s arms and prostitute scratched her. Police said Wilcock had no authority to grab Collins’ arm and so it was a battery.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

R v Thomas [1985]

A

Touching clothes may constitute batter

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

Faulkner v Talbot [1981]

Battery

A

Application of force need not be aggressive

Battery is intentional touching without consent

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

R v Martin [1881]

Battery

A

Force need not be applied directly

  • Defendant closed exit doors of a theatre. As people were about to leave, turned off lights and panic ensued.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

DPP v K [1990]

Battery

A

Force need not be applied directly

  • Boy took sulphuric acid to try out on loo paper. Poured it into hand dryer. Sometime later went to use the dryer and poured acid on face. K done for battery.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Fagan v MPC [1969]

Battery

A

Batter cannot be committed by an omission

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

DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003]

A

An omission may constitute battery

  • Constable searched Santana-Bermudez; asked 3 times if had taken everything out of pocket; said yes but had needle in pocket which pricked the police officer – held to be battery
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

OAPA 1861, s47

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

A
  • ‘whosoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable…to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding 5 years.’
18
Q

R v Venna [1976]

Battery

A

mens rea for assault is intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.

19
Q

DPP v Little [1992]

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

A
  • assault has been held to be assault or battery
    • Actus reus and mens rea must be established
20
Q

DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003]

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

A

Occasioning - assault must cause the harm

Must prove factual and legal causation

21
Q

R v Miller [1954]

Assault occasiong Acutal Bodily Harm

A
  • ABH is ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim’ and ‘more than transient AND trifling’
22
Q

R v Chan Fook [1994]

Assault Occasioning ABH

A
  • Harm is a synonym for injury, and includes psychological harm. Applied a de minimus threshold to ABH. “must not be so trivial as to be insignificant”. Actual indicates it’s not insignificant.
23
Q

T v DPP [2003]

Assault Occasioning ABH

A

A momentary loss of consciousness was ABH because involved injurious impairment of victim’s sensory functions

24
Q

DPP v Smith [2006]

Assault Occasioning ABH

A

Hair is a part of the body and so cutting it amounts to ABH.

25
Q

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

S47 OAPA 1861

A

‘whosoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable…to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding 5 years.’

  • – no mens rea is required for ABH. All that is required is the mens rea for the assault/battery.
26
Q

Malicious Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm

OAPA 1861, s20

A
  • ‘whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievious bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence…’
  • 2 offences – malicious wounding and maliciously inflicting GBH

MR

  • D must intend or be reckless as to the causing of the harm. Issue is the extent of the harm that must be intended.
27
Q

C (a minor) v Eisenhower [1984]

OAPA 1861, S20

Malicious Wounding

A

Continuity of the whole skin must be broken – both layers.

If proof of wounding, injury need not be severe.

28
Q

R v Wilson [1984]

OAPA 1861, S20

Inflicting GBH

A

GBH can be inflicted without an assault being committed.

29
Q

R v Saunders [1985]

OAPA 1861, S20

Inflicting GBH

A

GBH is “serious harm”

30
Q

R v Burstow [1985]

OAPA 1861, S20

Inflicting GBH

A

Psychological injury can constitute GBH

31
Q

R v Bollom [2004]

OAPA 1861, S20

Inflicting GBH

A

Consider totality of injuries and effect on victim when considering GBH

32
Q

R v Savage; Parmenter [1968]

OAPA 1861, s20

Mailciously Wounding or Inflicting GBH

A

When considering mens rea only have to foresee that some harm might result from actions via the intended or reckless orce.

33
Q

Wounding or Causing GBH with Intent

OAPA 1861, s18

A

“whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent…to do some grievous bodily harm to any person…shall be guilty of an offence.”

AR - Same as for OAPA 1861, s20 - maliciosu wounding or inflicting GBH

MR

  • Defendant must INTEND (R v Maloney) to cause harm which amounts to GBH. Recklessness is not enough.
  • Where the actus reus is a wound, the mens rea is still intention to cause GBH. Intention to wound is not enough.
34
Q

Compare S20 v S18 OAPA 1861

A
35
Q

Administer noxious thing with intent to injure

OAPA 1861, S24

A

“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy such person, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years.”

AR

  • Administering
  • Poison, destructive, or noxious thing

MR

  • Intention or reckless as to the administration
  • Intention to injure, aggrieve or annoy
36
Q

R v Kennedy [2007]

OAPA 1861, S24

Administer noxious thing with intent to injure

A

s24 creates 3 offences:

    1. Direct administration
      1. Causing to be administered (requires discussion of factual and legal cause re the act that caused it to be administered)
      2. Causing to be taken ( ie self administration) requires discussion of factual and legal causation re the taking only and will usually spark a discussion on whether the taking was free deliberate and informed as per R v Kennedy
37
Q

R v Gillard [1988]

OAPA 1861, S24

Administer noxious thing with intent to injure

A

Administering is causing entry to victim’s body in any way – can be spraying, hosing down as well

38
Q

R v Marcus [2007]

OAPA 1861, S24

Administer noxious thing with intent to injure

A
  • Poison, destructive or noxious thing – substance that is hurtful, unwholesome or objectionable, taking into account the nature of the substance and the quanity given.
39
Q

Administer noxious thing with intent to cause GBH

OAPA 1861, s23

A

“whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.”

AR

  • Administer - same as in S24
  • Poison, destructive or noxious thing - must be inherently dangerous
  • To endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm (requires discussion in fact and law on administered susbtance causing the serious injuries)

MR

  • Intention or Reckless to the Administration
  • Intention or Reckless as to the subtance being noxious
40
Q

R v Cato [1976]

OAPA 1861, s23

Administer noxious thing with intent to cause GBH

A

For a substance to be classified as a noxious thing it must be inherently dangerous and liable to injure in common use

41
Q

R v Cato [1976]

OAPA 1861, s23

Administer noxious thing with intent to cause GBH

Mens Rea

A

No requirement for prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to endanger life or cause GBH or was reckless to the endangerment of life or causing GBH.

(whoopsydoodle)

Criminal (13 decks)

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