Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Flashcards

Question

R v Wilson

Answer 1

Husband branded initials on his wife’s buttocks at her instigation, using hot knife; convicted under s47; C of A acquitted and consent deemed to be valid consent – Brown was not authority for the proposition that consent was no defence to any charge under s47. No public interest argument in this case (between husband and wife) activity was too close to tattooing and to make such activity criminal was not in public interest. Ratio: Where there is no public interest reason to make an activity criminal and where the activity in question resembles tattooing or something similar, consent will be a valid defence.

Answer 2

Partners involved in sadomasochistic acts; despite being two consenting adults, man charged with committing s47 against female partner Ratio: The issue of consent is immaterial where there is a realistic risk of harm ‘beyond a merely transient or trivial injury’

Answer 3

D, tattooist and body piercer, charged with s18 after removing part of victim’s ear, a nipple and split his tongue to resemble that of a lizard (with consent). Argument that body modification should be an exception failed. Held person could not consent to such a serious, irreversible injuries. Rejected that they were analogous to piercings or tattoos instead viewing them as medical procedures performed for no medical reason and no protection to patient provided by medical practitioner.

Answer 4

crimes of specific intent are ones where the key mens rea of the offence requires intention and nothing less. Crimes of basic intent are therefore ones where the mens rea can be established by something other than intention, ie for our purposes, crimes requiring proof of recklessness on the part of the defendant His Lordship’s justification for the distinction was that a defendant who reduced himself by drink/drugs to such a condition that he did not know what he was doing is, by definition, reckless. That recklessness is enough for the mens rea of basic intent crimes and thus such a defendant should be liable ‘the law is plain beyond all question that in cases falling short of insanity a condition of drunkenness at the time of committing an offence causing death can only, when it is available at all, have the effect of reducing the crime from murder to manslaughter.’

Answer 5

On duty soldier fired no. of shorts at a car which he thought was going to run down his colleagues. Held shots lawful. But a further shot after the care had passed by amounted to excessive force as then knew the danger to his colleagues had passed. Shot killed one passenger. Convicted of murder Appeal ef to H of L – rejected assertion that excessive force by armed forces which he believed was not excessive should lead to manslaughter rather than murder conviction – i.e partial defence – Hof L stated any change of law was matter for parliament.

Answer 6

Heated argument between the D and her ex boyfriend; she poured a drink over him, he slapped and pinned her against the wall; she punched him but had forgotten she was holding glass, causing him to lose his eye; held upon appeal that it was not necessary to prove that she was unwilling to fight for the defence of self-defence to apply Ratio: An individual does not have to wait for his assailant to hit him first in order to resort to self-defence.

Answer 7

D and 2 others were chased by 3 men after stealing some ganja; the men following them had sticks and stones; D fired shots and one of the men died as a result Ratio: ‘IF there has been an attack so that the defence is reasonably necessary it will be recognized that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact nature of his necessary defensive actions’ – i.e what is considered reasonable will be assessed from the perspective of the defendant in the moment, not in hindsight. Whether the D used reasonable force in the circumstances as he believed them to be.

Answer 8

D shot at a person escaping with stolen goods, but he was unaware that the person was a felon; held that he could not rely on prevention of crime as a justification for his actions Ratio: A D cannot rely on facts of which he was unaware in deciding whether or not he used reasonable force.

Answer 9

A man saw a youth rob a women; intervened and knocked youth down; D saw this last part without seeing the youth rob the woman; intervened and struggle ensued between the 2 men; defendant charged with s47; acquitted because he held an honest, albeit mistaken, belief that there was a need to prevent crime Ratio: D will be judged on the facts as he believe them to be, even if his honestly held belief was mistaken or unreasonable.

Answer 10

Alcoholic was sleeping; claimed he was woken up by a friend hitting him, so he picked up some glass and defended himself; believed that he had only hit him a few times and that his friend had the upper hand, and that they consequently made up, ate food together and went to sleep; woke up to find friend dead from loss of blood with severe injuries Ratio: A mistaken belief in the need for force is no defence if that mistake is based on voluntary intoxication (related to drink, drugs etc)

Answer 11

Farmer shot and killed a burglar after discovering him in his house; pleaded self-defence and argued he suffered from a paranoid personality disorder; psychatirc evidence held not to be admissible. argument failed and charged with murder Ratio; Evidence of a person’s psychiatric state is inadmissible. Note: At odds with fact evidence of physical characterisice are, in addition to privy council decision in Shaw (Norman) v R where held that jury should look at circumstances and the danger as the D honestly believed them to be when deciding if the force was reasonable. – suggests psychiatric evidence would be directly relevant and should be admissible.

Answer 12

``` Under s76(5A), householders can use disproportionate force in self-defence as long as it is not grossly disproportionate. A householder found a trespasser in his house, and restrained him in a headlock. The trespasser suffered serious injuries. Upon investigation, CPS decided not to prosecute on basis that the use of force was in self-defence and not grossly disproportionate. The father of the trespasser challenged the decision on grounds incompatible with A2 of the ECHR Ratio: s76(5A) is not incompatible with Article 2. It does not give householders carte blanche in the degree of force they use in self-defence. ```

Answer 13

C of A was asked to decide whether s76(5A) had been correctly interpreted by the Divisional Court in R (Denby Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice Ratio: The provision, in a householder case, only slightly refines the common law so that the use of a degree of force that is disproportionate may nevertheless be reasonable. In order to convict in the householder context, the test is not just ‘is the court satisfied that the force was grossly disproportionate’, but whether ‘if the court considers that force may not have been so disproportionate, is it satisfied that the force was unreasonable’. Reasonableness is therefore part of the householder defence as it is for self-defence generally.

Answer 14

o Parents/those in loco parentis can use reasonable force to discipline their children

Answer 15

o The defendant must establish that:  The defendant reasonably believes he is threatened with death or serious injury to himself/to another (Subjective); and  A person of reasonable firmness of the defendant’s age and gender would have given way to threats as the defendant did (objective)