Non fatal offences - CRIMINAL LAW (1) Flashcards
define non fatal offences
crimes that do not result in the death of a person
put the non fatal offences in ascending order of seriousness
- assault - common law but charged under S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
- Battery - common law but charged under S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
- Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - S47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
- Malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm - S20 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
- Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent - S18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
where does the definition of assault come from
common law and not statute
what is an assault
Assault is the intentional act of causing another person to fear imminent bodily harm. It does not require physical contact, just the threat or attempt of force that makes the victim feel in immediate danger.
Example: Raising a fist to someone in a threatening manner or verbally threatening to harm someone can be considered assault if it causes the victim to fear they will be harmed.
where are the charging standards found for assault
Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
what is the maximum sentence for an assault
A sentence can be a maximum of £5000 and or 6 months in prison
if more than 1 assault then max is 12 months in prison
what kind of defence is an assault
summary offence
was it is the actus reus for an assault
an act which causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful force
what types of behaviour contributes to an assault
words or gestures
threatening someone
silenced conduct
what would not constitute to an assault
An omission cannot constitute to an assault
if it was obvious that the words used by D that D cannot actually use any force at the time of the treat (as there is clearly no immediate threat of force!)
what is the case for the actus reus for assault
and the legal principle
Constanza (1997)
it was held that threatening letters can also amount to an assault
furthermore, the word ‘ immediate ‘ means imminent
what is the case for silent phone calls
R v Ireland
principle= it was held that silent phone calls can amount to an assault, as long as the V fears immediate unlawful personal violence
silence phone calls
what is the legal principle for the case Tuberville V Savage
it was decided that words indicating that D will not use any immediate unlawful force MAY prevent an assault being committed
he was not guilty of an assault as his words had no immediacy therefore actus reus cant be there
what is the mens rea for assault
intention or recklessness to causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence
where does the definition of battery come from
common law and not statute
what is a battery
Battery refers to the unlawful physical contact with another person without consent. It involves actual physical harm or offensive contact, such as hitting, slapping, or pushing someone.
Example: Striking someone with a fist or any other object is battery, as it involves physical contact with the victim.
where can the charging standards for battery be found
under section 39 of the criminal justice act 1988
what is the maximum charging sentence
the sentence can be a maximum of £5000 fine and or 6 months in prison
12 months prison for more than 1 battery
what kind of offence is battery
summary offence
what is the actus reus for a battery
the unlawful application of force to the victim
what is the legal principle for Collins V Wilcock (1984)
the force must be unlawful and can include the slighest touch
what is the legal principle for Thomas (1985)
even touching of clothing can be sufficient for a battery
what is the legal principle for the case Haystead (2000)
a battery can also be committed through a direct or indirect act
this means the D does not have to physically touch V himself to be convicted of battery
what does is the legal principle for the case DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003)
a battery can be comitted through an omission BUT ONLY if the D is under the duty to act
the force for a battery must be what
unlawful force
if V gives genuine consent then force may be lawful
force used in self defence may also be lawful
what is the mens rea for battery
intention or recklessness to use unlawful force
where is ABH outlined in
Section 47 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
what kinda of offence is ABH
trible either way offence
what is the maximum sentencing for ABH
6 months prison or fine of £5000 (magistrates court)
5 years prison (crown court)
what is the actus reus of ABH
assault or battery that caused actual bodily harm
(however not usually serious injuries)
what case defines ABH
miller
it has been defined in case of miller as any hurt or injury which interferes with the health and comfort of the victim
ABH is any injury that interferes with the health and comfort of V
what is the legal principle of the case T v DPP
causing V to temporarily lose consciousness can amount to ABH
loss of consciousness is ABH
what is the legal principle of the case DPP v Smith
cutting off a substantial amount of Vs hair can amount to ABH
significant cutting hair is ABH
what is the legal principle of the case Chan Fook
psychological injuries are ABH
however it must be more than ‘mere emotions such as fear,distress or panic’
what is the mens rea for ABH
intention or recklessness to causing assault or battery
same mens rea as for assault and battery
what is the case for MR of ABH
Savage
what is the legal principle for Savage
the D does not have to intend the actual bodily harm caused
what kind of offence are section 20 GBH/Wounding
triable either way offences
what are the maximum sentencing for section 20 offences
6 months prison or £5000 fine (magistrates court)
5 years in prison (crown court)
same maximum penalties as S47 even though S20 are more serious
where are S20 offences defined in
Section 20 offences against the persons act 1861 as maliciously inflicting grevious bodily harm or wounding
what is the actus reus of Section 20 offences (GBH or Wounding)
to inflict grievous bodily harm or wounding to the victim
what does the case JCC v Eisenhower show for wounding
defined a wound as being a cut or break in the continuity of the layers of the skin
no cut=no wounding
bruise isn’t enough to amount
what does GBH mean and what case defines it
Grievous bodily harm - means really serious harm as shown in DPP v Smith (1969)
what does the case Burstow (1997) show
serious psychological injuries can be GBH
what does the case Dica (2004) show
knowingly transmitting sexual diseases can be GBH
what does the case Bollom (2003) show
the V’s characteristics can be considered when deciding whether the injuries inflicted by D can amount to ABH
bruising can amount to GBH depending on the characteristics such as age
what is the mens rea for section 20 wounding/GBH
intentionally or recklessly causing some harm
have to intend to cause harm! unlike section 47
what does cunningham (1957) state
where maliciously is used, it means that the D was subjectively reckless as to cause some harm to the V
CofA stated that malicious means intent to cause some harm or was the D reckless as to weather some harm may occur
what type of offences are section 18
indictable offences
what is the sentence for a section 18 offence
maximum life imprisonment
where are s18 offences defined in
section 18 offences against the persons act 1861; unlawful wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent
what is the actus reus of s18 offences
causing grievous bodily harm or wounding to the victim
same as AR s20
what are the 3 cases for AR of s18 GBH
DPP v Smith - GBH means really serious harm
Burstow - serious psychological injuries can be GBH
Dica- knowingly transmitting sexual diseases can be GBH
What is the case for wounding
JCC v Eisenhower - a wound is the break in the continuity of the skin
what is the mens rea for s18
intention to cause really serious harm or intention to resist or prevent lawful arrest whilst being reckless as to causing some harm to the V
what are the 3 cases for MR of s18
Belfon (1976)
Taylor (2009)
Morrison (1989)
what does the case Belfon (1976) show
a specific intent to cause serious harm is required for section 18
what does the case Taylor (2009) show
stated that an intent to wound is not enough mens rea for a s18 offence
what does the case Morrison (1989) show
where the D is trying to resist arrest or detention, then the level of intention required is lower
this protects police officers ect that have a duty of care
if the victim wasn’t injured what is it going to be
an assault and/or battery
if the victim was slightly injured what will it be
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s47)
if it is a wound or really serious injury that the D didn’t have the intention to cause serious harm
what is it
s20 offences against the person act 1861
if it is a wound or really serious injury that the D intended to cause serious harm
s18 offences against the person act 1861
