Non Fatal Offences cases

Question 1

Assault

Answer 1

Turberville v savage
Held: it did not amount assault as the words indicated that no violence would occur

Question 2

Battery

Answer 2

Thomas
Held: COA held that touching and rubbing a woman skirt would is equivalent to touching the person wearing clothing so couldn’t amount to battery
DPP V K
Held: d was convicted of s.47 ABH it was held that common assault could be committed by an indirect act

Question 3

Assault occasioning ABH actus reus

Answer 3

T V DPP
held: d was convicted, loss of consciousness even for a short amount of time could be ABH
DPP V SMITH
held: it was decided that cutting of a substantial amount of hair could amount to ABH
Chan fook
Held: ABH can be psychological harm as long as it is more than mere emotions such as fear and panic

Question 4

Assault occasioning ABH mens rea

Answer 4

Savage
D did not foresee the level of injury
Robert’s
Held: d was convicted of ABH as he only needed to attend battery

Question 5

GBH and wounding s.20 actus reus

Answer 5

Dica
Held: coa ruled that infecting someone with HIV amounted to inflicting GBH and V did not consent as they did not know the true nature of the act

Question 6

Actus reus wounding s.20

Answer 6

Eisenhower
Held: the offence of wounding was not committed as both layers of the skin were not broken

Question 7

Mens rea wounding and GBH s.20

Answer 7

Parmenter
Held: d’s conviction for s.20 GBH was changed to s.47 ABH for s.20 d must appreciate that there were risk of some harm and take that risk

Question 8

GBH and wounding s.18 mens rea

Answer 8

Taylor
Held: MR to wound is not sufficient for s.18 GBH it must be intentional to cause GBH
Morrison
Held:the test of recklessness for all offences against the person is a subjective one