Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

Question 1

DPP v Smith

Answer 1

Policeman tried to stop the D from driving off with stolen goods by jumping onto the car; D drove off at speed and zigzagged in order to get officer off car; policeman suffered harm
Ratio: GBH means ‘really serious harm’

Examples may be fractured skill, severe internal injuries and broken limbs

Question 2

R v Burstow

Answer 2

Stalker making silent telephone calls to victim – suffered severe psychiatric illness. Hof L held no need for direct application of force could be GBH without physical or simple assault.
RATIO:
Psychiatric problems can amount to GBH if severe enough
Also that no simple or physical assault was required in order to ‘inflict GBH under s20.

Question 3

Moriarty v Brookes

Answer 3

D had a dispute with a customer and asked him to leave; upon customer’s refusal to do so he struck him causing a cut below his eye
Ratio: A wound requires both layers of the skin to be broken

Question 4

JJC (a minor) v Eisenhower

Answer 4

D shot an airgun at a group of people; hit someone just below the eye, causing bruising but no breaking of the skin (one blood vessel at least below the skin burst); conviction under s20 set aside
Ratio: Bruising or internal bleeding are not wounds no matter how serious the bleeding is, as the skin has not been broken.

Question 5

R v Miller

Answer 5

D’s wife filed for divorce; before the hearing D had sexual intercourse with her against her will and threw her to the ground on 3 occasions; wife suffered nervous shock; held to amount to bodily harm
Ratio: ABH means any hurt, or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim; the harm need not be serious and a bruise, scratch or swelling would suffice.

Question 6

R v Ireland

Answer 6

The D made a series of silent telephone calls over 3 months to 3 different women; convicted of a s47 assualt; conviction upheld on appeal
Ratio: Words alone can amount to assault as they can cause apprehension of immediate unlawful force; silence can amount to assault depending on the facts if a silent caller intend by his silence to cause fear and is so understood.
ABH is capable of including psychiatric injury; however, it needs to be a recognizable clinical condition (e.g clinical depression)
Rage, fear, panic or hysterical/nervous condition would not count.
Medical evidence would need to be called to establish.

Question 7

R v Chan-Fook

Answer 7

Student lodger accused of stealing owners engagement ring was interrogated by them, struck, locked in a room and threated with further violence. Student attempted to escape and in doing so fractured wrist and dislocated hip. Charged with s47 but prosecution focused not on physical injuries but on the mental state of the victim and the fear and panic he suffered. No medical evidence was produced to support a finding of psychiatric injury
Ratio: Conviction was quashed. To amount to ABH, the injury need not be permanent but should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant. Feelings of fear and panic are emotions rather than an injury and without medical evidence to support recognized psychiatric condition a conviction of ABH could not stand.

Question 8

R v Savage; R v Parmenter

Answer 8

R v Savage: D threw pint of beer over the victim; glass slipped out of her hand and cut the victim’s wrist; held that D guilty even if did not intend harm, because she intended/was reckless as to the assault
R v Parmenter: father caused baby son injuries due to heavy handed way he handled the baby; argued that he did not appreciate the risk his actions caused; s20 conviction substituted for a s47
Ratio: The MR of a s47 offence is intention or reckless as to the assault only; there is no need to prove that the D intended or was reckless as to the harm itself.

Question 9

Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire

Answer 9

D punched baby’s mother, causing her to drop the baby; argued that he lacked the AR given no direct physical contact with the baby occurred; argument rejected; found guilty of assault on baby
Ratio: The application of force can be indirect.

Question 10

DPP v K

Answer 10

Boy took acid and placed it into a hot air hand dryer; another pupil used the hand drier and acid squirted into his face causing permanent scars; convicted of s47 offence
Ratio – The force need not be directly applied (general rule for AR infliction of force)

Question 11

R v Ireland

Answer 11

Words alone can amount to an assault – a thing said is also a thing done. No reason why something said should be incapable of causing apprehension of immediate unlawful personal force.

Question 12

Read v Coker

Answer 12

C owed rent to D; C refused to leave the premises; D sent men to C’s show to threaten to break his neck if he did not pay while D asked for the rent again; held that his actions amounted to assault
Ratio: Words with a threatening gesture (conditional threats) can amount to an assault as they intentionally and directly cause the victim to fear an imminent assault.
Conditional threats e.g “if you do not shut up I will slap you can amount to an assault assuming the conditional threat also satisfied the ‘immediate’ force requirement

Question 13

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Answer 13

Police officer approached D in his car and asked him to move it; D moved it and accidentally rolled it onto the foot of the officer; officer yelled at him to move the car off of it and D refused to move; held to amount to assault when he was aware he was on the officer’s foot and refused to move
Ratio: Any act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate or unlawful personal force amounts to assualt.

Question 14

R v Burstow

Answer 14

D stalked victim over a no. of years, sending photos letters, calling her and visiting her home; victim suffered psychiatric injury; held that if the victim had fears that the D could strike at any time, this was sufficient to establish assault.
Ratio: The apprehension of force must be immediate; even if unlawful application of force never occurs, the fear of it occurring at any time is sufficient.
No simple or physical assault is required to inflict GBH under s20; psychiatric problems can amount to GBH if they are severe enough (must be medically recognized conditions).

Question 15

Rv Savage; R v Parmenter

Answer 15

R v Savage: D threw pint of beer over the victim; glass slipped out of her hand and cut the victim’s wrist; held that D guilty even if did not intend harm, because she intended/was reckless as to the assault
R v Parmenter: father caused baby son injuries due to heavy handed way he handled the baby; argued that he did not appreciate the risk his actions caused; s20 conviction substituted for a s47
Ratio: The MR of a s47 offence is intention or reckless as to the assault only; there is no need to prove that the D intended or was reckless as to the harm itself.

Question 16

R v Venna

Answer 16

D was causing a disturbance with friends; apprehended by police and arrested when continued in defiance; D fought so violently it took 4 police officers to get him into police vehicle; Issue of whether recklessness was sufficient to be convicted; held it was
Ratio: The MR for simple assault is that the D must intend to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal force, or be reckless as to whether such apprehension be caused.

Question 17

R v Spratt

Answer 17

D fired an air gun with pellets out of his flat window; did not think anyone was in the vicinity and did not foresee a risk of any harm he only wanted to see how far the pellets would go; held recklessness required some appreciation of risk (which he lacked)
Ratio: The test for recklessness with regards to offences against the person is subjective - the defendant must foresee the risk that the victim will apprehend immediate unlawful personal force and go on to take that risk. Doesn’t matter if seems obvious to jury if the D did not foresee it then he is acquitted.

Question 18

Attorney General’s Reference No.6 of 1980

Answer 18

2 youths decided to settle differences by means of a fist fight’ charged with s47 offence; held that consent to engage in the fight was not a defence
Ratio: Consent is no defence to any assault causing harm unless it falls into one of the recognized exceptions such as surgical operations, dangerous exhibitions and properly conducted sports.

Question 19

R v Barnes

Answer 19

Victim sustained serious injury as a result of a tackle by the D in a football match; the fact the tackle was a foul did not mean that the threshold for criminal conduct had been reached; victim had consented to physical conduct that fell within the rules of the game and conduct outside it which may be expected due to the nature of the sport
Ratio: Criminal conviction in the course of a sporting event is reserved for those situations where the conduct is sufficiently grave to be properly categorized as criminal and this will depend on the circumstances. The level will be assessed objectively (by the jury) and determined by the type of sport, level at which it was played, nature of the act, the degree of force used, the extent of risk of injury and the state of mind of the defendant. In highly competitive sports, where conduct outside the rules could be expected to occur in the heat of the moment, such conduct may still not reach the threshold level required for it to be criminal

Question 20

R v Brown

Answer 20

D were group of sadomasochistic homosexuals who participated in acts of violence against each other, including genital torture, for the sexual pleasure which it engendered in the giving and receiving of pain; It was not disputed that the passive partner or victim in each case consented to the acts being committed and suffered no permanent injury
convicted of s47 and 20; held that the consent of participants was not a valid defence for public interest reasons
Lord Templeman – considered it to be violence as well as sex as so fell within OAPA. Not in public interest. And risk of corrupting young men, spreading disease and level of pain inflicted getting out of control. Lord T could not see any good reason to invent a defence of consent for act that “breed and glorify cruelty”.
Ratio: consent will not be valid to any assault causing harm and which is unlawful.

Laskey v UK – case taken to ECHR as breach of Art 8 – held courts decision did not breach as in legitimate aim of protection of health.

Question 21

R v Tabassum

Answer 21

D claimed to be medically qualified and carrying out study on breast cancer (untrue); 3 women allowed him to touch their breasts but complained they would not have done so if they had known the truth; charged with assault as the victims did not know the quality of the act
Ratio: consent requires knowledge or both the nature and the quality of the act

Question 22

R v Jones

Answer 22

There is genuine belief in consent

Question 23

R v Dica

Answer 23

D had unprotected sexual intercourse with 2 women despite knowing he was HIV positive; claimed both had consented to unprotected intercourse with full knowledge of risk; held that women had not consented to risk of sexual intercourse just because they consented to sexual intercourse.
Ratio: Consent requires knowledge of both he nature and quality of the act – while women had consented to sexual intercourse this did not include consent to risk of HIV. R v Clarence no longer good law.
Note: consent to risk would be valid if they had given it despite this possibly amounting to GBH; distinguished from R v Brown and R v Emmett because those cases concerned harm being deliberately inflicted which is not the same as consenting to risk of infection

As an obiter statement, the C of A said that the defence would not be available where there was a deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm.
They also reiterated the general principle that, unless an activity is lawful, the consent of the victim to the deliberate infliction of ABH was no defence.
list of categories of activity regarded as lawful (ie where consent would act as a defence) was not closed and not immutable.

R V Clarence – husband had sex with wife despite knowing he had a venereal disease. Court held not liable as she knew the assailant and the nature of the act (sexual intercourse) and consented to it.

Question 24

R v Konzani

Answer 24

D had unprotected sexual intercourse with 3 women despite knowing HIV positive (without telling them); women contracted HIV; D claimed thy had consented to all risks associated with unprotected sex; held that women had not consented to risk and their consent was not fully informed
Ratio: consent requires knowledge of both the nature and quality of act – while women had consented to sexual intercourse, this did not include consent to risk of HIV infection and their consent was not fully informed. R v Clarence no longer good law

Question 25

R v Wilson

Answer 25

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.

Question 26

R v Emmett

Answer 26

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’

Question 27

R v BM

Answer 27

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.

Question 28

DPP v Beard

Answer 28

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.’

Question 29

R v Clegg

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

R v Bird

Answer 30

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.

Question 31

Palmer v R

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

R v Dadson

Answer 32

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.

Question 33

R v Williams (Gladstone)

Answer 33

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.

Question 34

R v O’Grady; R v Hatton

Answer 34

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)

Question 35

R v Martin (anthony)

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice

Answer 36

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.

Question 37

R v Ray

Answer 37

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.

Question 38

R v Hopley

Answer 38

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

Question 39

R v Graham

Answer 39

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)