non-fatal offences cases Flashcards
R v Nelson (2013) significance
-assault
D has done something of a physical kind which causes someone to apprehend that they are about to be struck
R v Constanza (1997)
-assault
-shows it has to be an act
-good to use in evaluation
sum: D wrote 800 letters and V interpretated that last 2 letters as clear threats
sig: Words alone are sufficient.
upheld by CA, only need to prove a fear of violence at some time, not excluding the immediate future.
R v Ireland & Burstow (1997)
-assault
sum: silent phone calls amounted to assault
sig: held that physical proximity isn’t needed as immediate fear was placed when on phone. However house of lords said it depends on facts of a case as immediate fear alone is not alwauys sufficient.
R v Misalati
-assault
sum: D spat at V
sig: spitting can amount to an act causaing V to apprehend violence
Logdon v DPP (1976)
-assault
-apprehention/anticipation infliction of immediate, unawful force
sum: D pointed gun at woman and D told her it wasn’t real
sig: apprehention because she is being held at gun point so anticipated threat/violence which amounts to assault.
R v Lamb (1967)
-assault
-apprehention/anticipation infliction of immediate, unawful force
sum: D pointed unloaded gun at woman, woman knew gun wasn’t loaded.
sig: did not anticipate immediate force so isn’t assault
Smith v chief supt. of Woking Police Station (1983)
-assault
-immediate, unlawful force
sum: D went up to V’s window and didn’t move when she was distressed at seeing him
sig: changed immediate to imminent unlawful force
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
-assault
-words can amount to apprehention alone
sum: D put hand on pocket with sword during assize-time to scare V
sig: words negate violence, however as he did not have his sword in hand it was held not assault as the words didn’t indicate immediate violence
R v Light (1857)
-assault
-words can amount to apprehention alone
sum: raised sword above V’s head but said they wouldn’t do it due to policeman there
sig: links to Tuberville v Savage as words didn’t apprehend violence but actions did (raised swored over head)
Donnelly v Jackman (1970)
- Battery
sum: Policeman tapped D on shoulder to get attention but D then assaulted him and got charged
sig: implied consent existed in crowded placed where there was jostling, didn’t provide more force than reasonably necessary so can’t be battery
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
- Battery
sum: D took arm to prevent V leaving but D became violent and charged of assault but contended policemans actions amounted to battery
sig: implied consent to jostling exists but restraint is deemed unlawful force
Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008)
- Battery
sum: In a bar, police officer grabbed D’s arm and he struggled against restraint and another officer grabbed him. Charged wirh assaulting officers in execution of duty.
sig: restraint wasn’t in process of arrest (links to Collins v Wilcock) and not lawful force, D was entitled to struggle therefore not guilty of assault against police
R v Thomas (1985)
- Battery
- (key case)
sum: D was a caretaker at school and he grabbed hold of 12yr old girls skirt
sig: touching a persons clothes is equivalent to touching their body
Fagan v Met Police Commander (1968)
- battery
sum: D drove over police foot accidentally, when asked to move it he refused
sig: D argued he lacked mens rea at time of actus reus but then when he refused to move he gaines the mens rea- battery can be a continuing act
DPP v K (1990)
- Battery
- (key case)
sum: acid in hand drier by 15yr old boy, left it there to come back to later but V used handrier and got acid over face
sig: battery may be committed by an indirect act
R v Martin (1881)
- Battery
- (key case)
sum: D placed iron bar across door and turned off lights, in panic many people tried to escape but couldn’t so got injured
sig: battery may be committed bu an indirect act
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire (2000)
- Battery
sum: D punched mother causing child to fall out her arms and D was reckless as to whether actions would injure child
sig: battery may be an indirect act and transferred malice
DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003)
- Battery
sum: D had needles in pocket which stabbed police officer when she searched him, which he knew would happen
sig: Indirect act can be by omission, D didn’t state he had something in his pocket that would cause harm
DPP v Majewski (1976)
- Battery
sum: D committed series of assaults whilst under the influence of drugs & alcohol (3 countts of ABH & 3 counts of assault). He relied on intoxications as a defence, but appeal was dismissed.
sig: assault and battery charges intoxication is sufficient mens rea (recklessness is basic intent)
moriarity v Brooks (1834)
* GBH - wounding
* (key case)
sum: D punched landlord of pub, who got a cut under his that bled
sig: a break in the continuity of the whole skin
JCC v Eisenhower (1984)
* GBH - wounding
* (key case)
sum: D fired air pistol and pellet hit V in eye causing blood vessel to rupture
sig: not wounding as skin was not broken
R v Martin (1881)
- significance only
- GBH
no need for direct application, indirect is sufficient
R v Wilson (1984)
* GBH - inflicting
sum: motorist had an argument and puched pedestrian
sig: inflicting can be direct application of force or doing something which isn’t direct force that results in harm of V’s body
R v Burstow (1997)
- significance only
* GBH - wounding
inflict has same meaning as cause, doesn’t require a technical assault or battery
R v Donovan (1934)
- ABH- significance only
injury must be more than merely transient and trifling
R v Miller (1954)
- ABH- significance only
gave definition of ABH to include hurt or injury calculated to interefere with health or comfort of the person
R v Chan Fook (1994)
- ABH- significance only
- (key case)
CA said ABH has to indicate the injury (doesn’t have to be permanent) should not be trivial as to be wholly insignificant.
Found thay psychiatric injury can qualify as ABH
J v DPP (2003)
- ABH- significance only
Court agrued it was transient but it was not trifling when V lost consciousness
DPP v Smith (2006)
- ABH & GBH
sum: continued stalking that cause depression.
sig:
- serious psychiatric injury can be GBH.
- Cutting hair was ABH as hair was part of the body (amount must be significant so as not to be trivial)
R v Burstow (2007)
- ABH- significance only
follows R v Chan Fook.
Bodily harm under s.18, 20 & 47
Must include recognisable psychiatric harm
R v Roberts (1971)
- ABH- significance only
claimed he hadn’t intended or seen any risk of her suffering ABH.
Rejected as court held sufficient mens rea for battery
R v Savage (1991)
- ABH- significance only
sufficient MR for intent to apply unlawful force
Therefore s.47 not s.20
R v Parmenter
- GBH
sum: D injured baby due to rough handling but didn’t know it would cause harm.
sig: recklessness to harm is enough, doesn’t have to be serious harm. Only need to forsee harm, not the level of harm that is caused (following r v Cunningham)
R v Cunningham
- GBH
sum: D ripped gas meter off wall to get money and gas leaked into next door apartment which poisned occupant.
sig: malicious means an actual intention to do the harm or recklessness to the harm
R v Bollom
- GBH
sum: 17 month old child had bruising on abdomen, arms and legs
sig: bruising can amount to GBH, depends on vulnerability of V
R v Dica
- GBH
sum: D had unprotected sex with 2 women without telling them he was HIV+ so both becam infected
sig: infecting another amounts to GBH, as disease causes them harm
R v Morrison
- wounding or causing GBH with intent (s.18 offences against the person act)
sum: Dived through a window and dragged policewoman behind him causing bad cuts to face. D resisted arrest.
sig: malicious as saw some harm (s.20) but full intent to resist arrest is sufficient MR alone (s.18) that can lead to life imprisonment.
R v Taylor
* wounding or causing GBH with intent (s.18 offences against the person act)
sum: stabbed V in back, was a wound but couldn’t tell if serious harm
sig: S.18 conviction quashed and reduced to s.20. Intention to wound not sufficient, must be intention to GBH
