Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Flashcards
What are the two common law offences against the person?
- Assault
- Battery
In what Act are the main offences of ABH, GBH and GBH with intent contained?
- Offences Against the Person Act 1861
What is the problem with the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
- It is a very old statute which causes problems for the legal system
Describe common assault. What type of offence is it#? Under what Act is it charged? What sentence?
- Common Law offence
- Summary offence
- Charged under s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
- 6 months imprisonment or fine
What is common assault?
- An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate and unlawful force being used against them
Is an omission sufficient for common assault?
No. It must be an act
In common assault, the act only needs to have caused fear. No force need actually be applied. Name a case that illustrates this.
- Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983)
What happened in Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983)?
- A woman was being watched by a man in her garden. Her fear was sufficient
What happened in Ireland (1997)?
- Silent telephone calls were considered to be an assault as they put the defendant in immediate contact with the victim
What is the Mens Rea of common assault?
- Intention to cause someone to fear the immediate infliction of unlawful force or recklessness
Describe common battery. What type of offence is it? Under what Act is it charged?
- Common law offence
- Summary offence
- Charged under s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
What is common battery?
- the application of unlawful force against the victim
The force used in common battery can be a simple touch. Give a case that illustrates this
- Collins v Wilcock (1984)
What happened in Collins v Wilcock (1984)?
- Police officers tried to question prostitutes who didn’t want to talk
- Once of the officers put his hand on the prostitute’s arm. This was considered battery
What was held in Thomas (1985)?
- Touching the bottom of a woman’s skirt was sufficient for battery, as the court said this was the same as touching the person
What happened in Wood v DPP (2008)?
- A police officer took hold of Wood’s arm to check his identity
- HELD - the officer had not arrested Wood, therefore the officer had committed battery
Can battery be committed by an omission? Give a case that illustrates this
- Yes
- DPP v Santana Bermudez (2003)
What happened in DPP v Santana Bermudez (2003)?
- Police officer asked for defendant (who she was searching) if there were any sharp objects in his pockets
- He said no
- She pricked her finger on a needle in his pocket
- Defendant’s omission = actus reus
What is the Mens Rea for common battery? In what case was this decided?
- An intention to apply physical force to someone or recklessness as to whether that force was applied
- R v Cunningham
Under what Act is assault occasioning actual bodily harm charged?
- s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
What is the Actus Reus for ABH?
- An assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm
What happened in Miller (1954)? What was held?
- Husband raped wife and threw her to the ground three times
- Charged with rape and ABH (rape not allowed as marital exception)
- HELD - ABH is any harm or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim
What happened in T v DPP (2003)? What was held?
- Defendant chased and kicked victim
- Victim lost consciousness
- HELD - loss of consciousness, even momentarily, was held to be actual bodily harm
What happened in DPP v Smith (Michael) (2006)? What was held?
- Defendant sat on top of ex and cut her ponytail off
- She sustained no bruises, scratches or cuts
- HELD - cutting the victim’s hair can amount to ABH
What happened in Chanfook (1997)? What was held?
- Defendant locked victim in room and threatened violence
- Victim tried to escape through the window, sustaining injuries
- Conviction quashed as panic and distress not enough for ABH
- HELD - psychiatric injury counts, but it must be an identifiable clinical condition
Why was the defendant in Roberts (1971) guilty of ABH?
- Even though he had not intended any injury or realised that there was a risk of injury, he had applied unlawful force when he tried to assault the victim in the car and this satisfied the mens rea
Why was the defendant guilty of ABH in Savage (1991)?
- She had gone to throw a drink over her ex-husband’s girlfriend in a pub
- The glass slipped out of her hand and cut the woman
- She had intended to throw the beer so had the intention to apply unlawful force
Under what Act is Malicious Wounding/Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm charged?
- S20 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
Malicious Wounding/GBH is split in two. What are said two?
- Wounding
- GBH
Define wounding
- A cut or break in the whole skin
Define GBH
- Serious harm following Saunders (1985)
Give two cases where the injury was not sufficient enough to be considered wounding
- JCC v Eisenhower (1983)
- Wood (1830)
What was held in JCC v Eisenhower (1983)
- Internal bleeding in the eye was not sufficient as the skin was not broken
What was held in Wood (1830)?
- Victim’s collar bone broken but skin wasn’t so not a wound
What was held in R v Saunders (1985)?
- GBH means serious harm
Can serious psychiatric injury amount to GBH? In what case was this decided?
- Yes
- Burstow (1977)
What was held in Bollom (2004)?
- Severity of injuries should be assessed in accordance with the victim’s age and health
What was decided in Dica (2004)?
- Infecting someone with HIV is GBH
What happened in R v Konzani (2005)?
- Defendant gave three people HIV
- They didn’t know he had HIV and so couldn’t give informed consent
- HELD - GBH
What is the Mens Rea for Malicious wounding and GBH? What case was this based on?
- Intention or subjective recklessness as to some harm (must be malicious)
- R v Cunningham (1957)
What is the Actus Reus for Malicious Wounding /GBH with intent? What is it necessary to prove?
- Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm
- Necessary to prove that the defendant’s acts was a substantial cause of the wound or GBH
What is the Mens Rea for Malicious Wounding/ GBH with intent?
- Intent to do some grievous bodily harm or resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of any person
If any injury is caused whilst resisting arrest, then recklessness can be proved in relation to this injury. Give a case that illustrates this.
- Morrisons (1989)
What happened in Morrisons (1989)? What was held?
- Defendant took police officer arresting him through a window. Her face was badly cut
- Recklessness sufficient for this injury
What was decided in Taylor (2009)?
- Intention to wound is not enough for the Mens Rea for s18 (Malicious Wounding/GBH with intent)
Define direct intention. Example?
- Where the defendant embarks on a course of action to bring about a result which in fact occurs
- I want to kill the Mrs, so I get a knife, sharpen it and stab her
Define oblique intention. Example?
- Can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequences of his actions will also bring about another result
- I want to kill the Mrs so I’m going to bomb her at work -I know her colleagues will die so I am no less culpable for killing them than my wife
Give two cases that illustrate oblique intention
- Nedrick (1986)
- Woollin (1998)
What was decided in Nedrick (1986)?
- Where there is no direct intent, a judge is entitled to direct a jury that intent may be inferred if the resulting death was virtually certain and the defendant appreciated this virtual certainty (two independent requirements)
How did the judge direct the jury in Woollin (1998)?
- Applying Nedrick, directed the jury that the defendant could be said to have intended the death if there was a substantial risk of death which was appreciated by the defendant
According to the Charging Standards document, it is common assault/battery where the injuries amount to no more than what four things?
- Grazes
- Scratches
- Abrasions
- Minor bruising
