Non-fatal violence offences

Question 1

Assault + case example

Answer 1

An act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. The focus is on the victim’s apprehension or fear, rather than the actual use of force.
Case reference: R v Ireland [1997] AC 59. In this case, silent phone calls were made to the victim, causing her to feel fearful and suffer psychological harm. The court held that fear alone could amount to an assault.

Question 2

Battery + case example

Answer 2

The intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person. The focus is on the actual use of force, regardless of the victim’s apprehension or fear.
Case reference: DPP v K [1990] 1 WLR 74. The defendant threw a beer glass in the victim’s face, causing injury. The court held that this constituted a battery.

Question 3

Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) + case example

Answer 3

Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim that is more than transient or trifling. The harm must be more than minor, but need not be serious.
Case reference: R v Chan Fook [1994] 2 All ER 552. The defendant slapped and kicked the victim, causing cuts and bruises. The court held that this amounted to ABH, as the injuries interfered with the victim’s health and comfort.

Question 4

Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) + case example

Answer 4

Serious harm, such as broken bones or permanent disfigurement, inflicted either intentionally or recklessly. GBH can also be caused by poisoning or disease.
Case reference: DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290. The defendant threw acid in the victim’s face, causing permanent disfigurement. The court held that this constituted GBH.

Question 5

Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (AOABH) + case example

Answer 5

An assault that causes actual bodily harm to the victim. The defendant must have intended or been reckless as to the assault, but need not have intended the actual harm caused.
Case reference: R v Savage [1991] 4 All ER 698. The defendant swung a beer glass at the victim’s head, causing a cut that required stitches. The court held that this amounted to AOABH.

Question 6

Section 18 GBH + case reference

Answer 6

The intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, which is the most serious non-fatal violence offense. The harm must be inflicted intentionally, and the defendant must have had the specific intent to cause really serious harm.
Case reference: DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443. The defendant attacked several people in a pub, causing injuries including a broken nose and a bitten-off ear. The court held that this constituted section 18 GBH.

Question 7

Common assault

Answer 7

Means assault or battery

Question 8

What are assault and battery charged under + what does it state?

Answer 8

Charged under s. 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003:
“Common assault and battery shall be summary offences and a person guilty of either shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the sliding scale, to imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or to both”

Question 9

What would mean D has the actus reus of assault?

Answer 9

If D causes V to fear the application of immediate, unlawful force

Question 10

What would mean D has the mens rea of assault?

Answer 10

If D either has the intention to cause V to fear the application of immediate, unlawful force or subjective (Cunningham) recklessness as to causing V to fear the application of immediate, unlawful force.

Question 11

A battery has been said to require a hostile act, but in the HoL in Re F (1990) Lord Goff said:

Answer 11

“I respectfully doubt whether that is correct… any touching of another’s body is, in the absence of lawful excuse, capable of amounting to a battery and a trespass.”

Question 12

What was decided in Brown (1993)?

Answer 12

It was decided that if the defendant’s actions are unlawful then they also satisfy the requirement for hostility.

Question 13

How is the mens rea for battery satisfied?

Answer 13

By proof of intention or of Cunningham (subjective) recklessness, the latter requiring proof that D foresaw a risk that force would be applied but carried on with his actions regardless.

Question 14

What would mean D has the actus reus of battery?

Answer 14

If D applies unlawful force to V

Question 15

What would mean D has the mens of assault?

Answer 15

If D has an intention to apply unlawful force to V or subjective (Cunningham) recklessness as to applying unlawful force to V

Question 16

Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Answer 16

This section makes it an offence, punishable with a maximum of five years’ imprisonment, to commit “an assault occasioning actual bodily harm”. (“assault” being assault or battery)

Question 17

What two elements are required for the s 47 OAPA offence?

Answer 17

1. Either (a) the actus reus plus the mens rea of assault or (b) the actus reus plus the mens rea of battery
2. Actual bodily harm caused by the assault or battery

Question 18

Occasion

Answer 18

means cause (Roberts (1971))

Question 19

How was ABH defined in the case of Miller (1954)

Answer 19

“any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim”

Question 20

What kind of link does the actus reus for assault or battery require and what is the test for this link?

Answer 20

The actus reus requires there to be a causal link between the assault or battery and the actual bodily harm, the test of causation being an objective one of whether the actual bodily harm was foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s action.
Thus, an action of the victim which is so daft or so unexpected that no reasonable person could be expected to foresee it, would break the chain of causation (Roberts (1971))

Question 21

What is required to satisfy the actus reus of s18 of OAPA?

Answer 21

requires a “wound” or the causing of “grievous bodily harm” (not inflicted)

Question 22

What is required to satisfy the mens rea of s18 of OAPA?

Answer 22

an intention: either 1) intent to cause grievous bodily harm, or 2) intent to resist or prevent (lawful) arrest or detention

Question 23

Section 20 of OAPA states…

Answer 23

“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person either with or without any weapon or instrument shall be guilty of an offence…”

Question 24

What is the actus reus for s20 of the OAPA?

Answer 24

either wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm - Wounding involves a complete break in the skin (JCC v Eisenhower (1983))
Grievous bodily harm means really serious bodily harm (DPP v Smith (1961))

Question 25

Explain the cases of Ireland, Burstow

Answer 25

• In Ireland, D made many unwanted phone calls to 3 women - when answered there was silence
• Effects of calls = each woman suffering significant psychological symptoms
• D convicted on 3 counts of ABHand eventually appealed to HoL
• In Burstow, D refused to accept that a woman wanted to end their relationship
• Over 6 years, he followed her to work, visited her house, turned up at places she happened to be, sent her hate mail, scattered condoms in her garden, etc.
• As a result she suffered endogenous depression with anxiety. He was convicted of maliciously inflicting GBH contrary to s20. Both his appeals to the HoL dismissed.

Question 26

Will psychiatric harm satisfy the actus reus for s20 of OAPA?

Answer 26

Yes as long as it is “serious” or “really serious” psychiatric harm - expert evidence must be called (Bollom (2003))

Question 27

In Ireland, Burstow the HoL made it clear that serious bodily harm can be “inflicted” (caused)…

Answer 27

with or without there being any physical assault and that it can be “inflicted” without there being even any personal violence at all, whether direct or indirect.

Question 28

Mens Rea of s20 of OAPA

Answer 28

mens rea for s20 is denoted by word “maliciously”, indicating the mens rea is satisfied by proof of either intention or Cunningham recklessness as to causing some harm

Question 29

Explain Savage; Parmenter (1991) w reference to OAPA

Answer 29

Savage: D had thrown glass at person in pub fight.
Glass missed intended target, instead hitting another person causing them to suffer injury.
D charged w maliciously causing GBH under s20 of OAPA.
D argued they did not intend to cause harm to victim, but rather intended target.
Crt held Cunningham recklessness = sufficient to satisfy mens rea + D found guilty
Parmenter: D had shaken 3 month old baby, causing baby to suffer injuries.
D charged w causing GBH w intent under s18 of OAPA.
D argued they had not intended to cause harm to baby, but rather been ignorant of risks of shaking a baby.
Crt held intent could be established through recklessness, + D had been reckless in their actions.
D found guilty of causing GBH w intent.

Question 30

What is stated in s18 of the OAPA

Answer 30

Causing GBH w intent.
States anyone who unlawfully + maliciously causes GBH to another person, w intention of causing such harm, will be guilty of an offence.

Question 31

What two new offences did the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 introduce?

Answer 31

Harassment and stalking

Question 32

When does a course of conduct amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (use brief case example)?

Answer 32

Must involve two or more incidents and the perpetrator must know or ought to know that the conduct is likely to cause the victim to feel harassed, alarmed, or distressed.
R v. Rimmington and Goldstein [2005]: the defendants were charged w harassment for repeatedly shouting abusive language at their neighbour, playing loud music, and generally making their neighbour’s life miserable.

Question 33

The offence of stalking is committed if…

Answer 33

it involves a pattern of persistent and unwanted behaviour that causes the victim to feel afraid, harassed, or intimidated. The behaviour may include a range of activities such as following, surveillance, contacting the victim, monitoring their communications, loitering, interfering with property, and watching or spying on them.

Question 34

Why is consent a defence to non-fatal offences against the person in english criminal law using case referencing

Answer 34

because it is based on the principle that individuals have the right to determine what happens to their own bodies, and they can choose to take risks that may result in harm to themselves, as long as they have given informed consent.
R v. Brown (1993): where a group of men were convicted of various offences including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and unlawful wounding after engaging in consensual sadomasochistic activities.
The court held that while the acts in question may have been morally repugnant to some, they were consensual and did not involve harm that was serious or permanent enough to warrant criminal punishment.
R v. Wilson (1996): where a man was charged with causing actual bodily harm to his wife by branding her buttocks with a hot knife.
The court held that the wife’s consent was a valid defence to the charge, as long as she had given it voluntarily and with a full understanding of the nature and consequences of the act.

Question 35

What is informed consent?

Answer 35

Where D knows that he is exposing V to a risk of harm, for example because D is infected w a serious sexually transmissible disease + has sexual intercourse w V, V’s consent is invalid unless they are aware of the risk they are taking

Question 36

What happened in the case of Dica (2003)

Answer 36

Dica, was charged with two counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Dica was HIV-positive and had sexual intercourse with two women without informing them of his condition. Both women subsequently contracted HIV, and they argued that they had not given their informed consent to engage in sexual activity with someone who was HIV-positive.
The court reasoned that a person who intentionally infects another with a serious disease is committing a separate offence, regardless of whether the victim consented to the sexual activity.

Question 37

What does invalid consent mean?

Answer 37

Consent is no defence if the victim lacks the capacity to consent, or if D obtains consent by fraud.

Question 38

What happened in the case of Tabassum (2000) (invalid consent)?

Answer 38

D persuaded several women to take part in a cancer survey he was carrying out.
This involved them removing their bras and allowing D to feel their breasts.
They consented to this but wouldn’t have done had they known D was not medically qualified.
It was held that this mistake as to the “quality” of D’s act negatived their consent, and consequently, D was guilty of indecent assault.