Non-fatals Flashcards
Define non-fatals offences
Physical offences that haven’t caused death
What Act are non-fatals defined under?
Offences Against the Person Act 1861
But assault + battery (minor offences) are defined under common law
Are the offences clear cut?
No
They tend to overlap a great deal
What is the AR of assault?
Act where D causes V to apprehend immediate application of unlawful force
What does the word ‘apprehend’ mean in the AR of assault?
Doesn’t mean fear
V only has to believe that the D is about to apply some unlawful force
For assault does the threat have to be immediate?
What case illustrates this?
Yes
Threat future force = not be an assault
Smith v Chief Superintendant of Working Police Station (1983)
Smith v Chief Superintendant of Working Police Station (1983)
D standing in V’s garden at around 11pm
Looking at her getting ready for bed in her ground-floor flat
Defence argues = no immediacy of threat
Court held that as far as she was concerned, threat = immediate
Can words amount to assault?
Yes
R v Ireland (1997)
D made silent phone calls to 3 women
HL held to be sufficient to cause V apprehend immediate infliction of unlawful force
Amount to assault
What case illustrates the words can negate an assault?
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
D put hand on sword
Said ‘if not assize time I would not take such language from you’
Saying he = NOT going to do anything; Cts in town
Therefore no assault
What does the word ‘force’ mean in the AR for assault?
Doesn’t mean violence
Any touching can be an assault
R v Thomas
What is the MR for assault?
Intention or recklessness to perform the AR
What is the AR for battery?
D actually applies unlawful force to V
Any unlawful contact can = battery (Thomas)
No need to prove harm/ physical pain
R v Thomas (1985)
D was charged with battery
Found NG but = stated that even touching a woman’s skirt could be a battery
For battery, does the force have to be applied directly?
Name 2 cases that illustrate this point
No, the force can be applied indirectly.
R v Martin (1881)
R v Haystead (2000)
R v Martin (1881)
D put iron bar against doors of theatre
Put out the lights + shouted fire
Actually convicted of GBH (some people were seriously injured)
Ct said he committed battery, even though he had not directly applied force
R v Haystead (2000)
Man punched a woman holding small child
She dropped baby as a result of punch
He = convicted of battery even though he had no direct contact with the child
What was said in the case of R v Pringle in relation to battery?
It was said that the application of force should be hostile
What are 7 examples of battery under the CPS charging standards?
- Grazing
- Scratches
- Abrasions
- Minor bruising
- Swelling
- Reddening of skin
- Black eye
What is the MR of battery?
D intends/ is reckless as application of force
Which case confirmed the MR of battery?
R v Venna (1976)
What is the maximum sentence for s47 ABH and s20 GBH?
5 years
What court can an ABH case be heard in?
= Triable either way offence
Heard in Mag Ct/ Crown Ct
What is the AR for ABH?
Has to be an assault/ battery occasioning ABH
What does the word ‘occasioning’ mean in the AR for ABH?
Causing
What did the Ct say in the case of Miller (1954) about ABH?
Ct stated: ABH includes hurt/ injury calculated to interfere with health/ comfort of V
What did Lord Hobhouse say in the case of R v Chan-Fook (1994) in relation to the AR of ABH?
Word ‘actual’ indicated injury doesn’t have to be permanent
But shouldn’t be “so trivial as to be wholly insignificant”
Does cutting someones hair amount to ABH?
Yes - DPP v Smith
D cut ex-girlfriends hair without her consent, held to be ABH
Which case established that psychological harm can amount ABH?
Case of Chan-fook
Ct: have to be clinically recognised condition for ABH to apply - not just emotions such as fear/ panic
Give 6 examples of ABH under the CPS charging standards
- Loss or breaking of teeth
- Loss of consciousness
- Extensive/ multiple bruising
- Minor fractures
- Minor cuts (might need stitching)
- Psychiatric injury
What is the MR for ABH?
Same for assault + battery
D doesn’t have to be aware = any risk of harm
Name 2 cases that illustrate the MR for ABH
R v Roberts (1978)
R v Savage (1992)
R v Roberts (1978)
D convicted of ABH
Made sexual advances towards girl in his car
Leading her jump out + she = injured
D argued he didn’t intend/ foresee any risk of her being caused harm
Argument failed - had MR for battery = enough
R v Savage (1992)
D = in her local pub
Saw husband’s new girlfriend friends
D went to table + threw a pint over her head
Glass slipped + cut the woman’ wrist
Ct: D didn’t need to be aware of risk that she might cause harm
She DID intend to apply unlawful force + that = enough for s47 conviction
What did the courts say in the case of R v Savage (1992)?
D didn’t need to be aware of risk that she might cause harm
She DID intend to apply unlawful force + that = enough for s47 conviction
What is the difference between s20 + s18?
s20 has a lower level of MR
What does the prosecution need to prove for a D to be convicted under s20? (AR)
That D either wounded V /inflicted GBH
Need to make sure that the D is charged correctly
Define wounding
Breaking surface of skin
Minor cut = still be a wound
Internal bleeding = not
What is the AR for wounding?
Breaking the surface of the skin
Does internal bleeding count as wounding?
No
Surface of skin = not been broken
Therefore cannot be wound
What case demonstrates the AR of wounding?
Wood (1830)
D broke V’s collar bone
But skin = still intact
Couldn’t be G of wounding
Wood (1830)
D broke V’s collar bone
But skin = still intact
Couldn’t be G of wounding
Define GBH
What case was this established in?
DPP v Smith (1961)
Held to mean ‘really serious harm’
What do the Cts need to consider about the V when convicting someone of GBH?
Need to take into account characteristics of V (age + health)
Means that harm only has to be serious for them
R v Bollom (2003)
What case demonstrates the fact that the GBH inflicted only has to be serious for them?
R v Bollom (2003)
R v Bollom (2003)
V = 17 month old child
Suffered bruising + abrasions to her body, arm + legs
Court ruled that this = GBH taking into account age + fragility
Can biological harm be GBH?
What case demonstrates this?
Yes
Can be accepted as GBH
R v Dica (2004) [HIV]
R v Dica (2004)
D infected 2 women with HIV
Had unprotected sex with them knowing he = HIV +ve
He didn’t tell them
What does ‘inflict’ in the AR for s20 GBH suggest?
It used to be thought that there had to be a direct application of force
Under s20, does the application of force have to be direct?
What case illustrates this?
No
R v Burstow (1997) made clear that this = not necessary
‘Inflict’ means same as cause
If D’s action have lead to consequences that V suffered GBH = enough
R v Burstow (1997)
D = obsessed with woman at work
Over several months
Stalked, damaged her car harassed her including silent phone calls + stealing her underwear
As result, she suffered severe depression
D conviction GBH = upheld by HL
Give 6 examples of s20 CPS charging standards
- Compound fractures
- Psychiatric injury
- Injuries - lengthy treatment/ incapacity
- Injuries - substantial loss of blood,
- Injury - permanent disability,
- Injury - disfigurement, displaced limbs/ bones
What is the MR of s20 GBH?
D must intend to cause some harm/ be subjectively reckless
(s)he must be aware of risk of harm
NOT NECESSARILY SERIOUS
What case confirmed the principle set in R v Cunningham (1957)?
R v Parmenter (1991)
What was the word used in the act for the MR of GBH?
‘maliciously’
R v Cunningham (1957)
Held to just mean intention
R v Parmenter (1991)
D threw 3 month old baby in air + caught him Causing serious injuries to baby's legs D didn't realise this might cause injury D conviction = quashed BUT he found G under s47
R v Grimshaw (1984)
D heard someone insult her boyfriend in pub
D pushed glass she was holding into his face
G of GBH - had foreseen risk of some harm
Even though harm actually caused = more serious than she had considered
What is s18 OAPA?
Wounding/ causing GBH with intent
What is the AR for s18?
Same as s20
What is the MR for s18?
Requires intention to be proven
Prosecution must prove D intends to cause serious harm
Is recklessness sufficient for the MR of s18?
No
Prosecution must prove D directly intended to cause serious harm/ if harm was virtually certain as a result of the D’s actions
R v Nedrick (1986)
What did the jury decide in R v Nedrick (1986) in relation to the MR of s18?
D intended to cause V harm
Due to fact that it was virtually certain that it would occur as a result of the D’s actions
