Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A2 Law > Non-fatals > Flashcards

Non-fatals Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Define non-fatals offences

A

Physical offences that haven’t caused death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What Act are non-fatals defined under?

A

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

But assault + battery (minor offences) are defined under common law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Are the offences clear cut?

A

No

They tend to overlap a great deal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the AR of assault?

A

Act where D causes V to apprehend immediate application of unlawful force

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What does the word ‘apprehend’ mean in the AR of assault?

A

Doesn’t mean fear

V only has to believe that the D is about to apply some unlawful force

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

For assault does the threat have to be immediate?

What case illustrates this?

A

Yes
Threat future force = not be an assault

Smith v Chief Superintendant of Working Police Station (1983)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Smith v Chief Superintendant of Working Police Station (1983)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Can words amount to assault?

A

Yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Ireland (1997)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What case illustrates the words can negate an assault?

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What does the word ‘force’ mean in the AR for assault?

A

Doesn’t mean violence
Any touching can be an assault
R v Thomas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the MR for assault?

A

Intention or recklessness to perform the AR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the AR for battery?

A

D actually applies unlawful force to V
Any unlawful contact can = battery (Thomas)
No need to prove harm/ physical pain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R v Thomas (1985)

A

D was charged with battery

Found NG but = stated that even touching a woman’s skirt could be a battery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

For battery, does the force have to be applied directly?

Name 2 cases that illustrate this point

A

No, the force can be applied indirectly.

R v Martin (1881)
R v Haystead (2000)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Martin (1881)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

R v Haystead (2000)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What was said in the case of R v Pringle in relation to battery?

A

It was said that the application of force should be hostile

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What are 7 examples of battery under the CPS charging standards?

A
  1. Grazing
  2. Scratches
  3. Abrasions
  4. Minor bruising
  5. Swelling
  6. Reddening of skin
  7. Black eye
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is the MR of battery?

A

D intends/ is reckless as application of force

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Which case confirmed the MR of battery?

A

R v Venna (1976)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is the maximum sentence for s47 ABH and s20 GBH?

A

5 years

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What court can an ABH case be heard in?

A

= Triable either way offence

Heard in Mag Ct/ Crown Ct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What is the AR for ABH?

A

Has to be an assault/ battery occasioning ABH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What does the word ‘occasioning’ mean in the AR for ABH?

A

Causing

26
Q

What did the Ct say in the case of Miller (1954) about ABH?

A

Ct stated: ABH includes hurt/ injury calculated to interfere with health/ comfort of V

27
Q

What did Lord Hobhouse say in the case of R v Chan-Fook (1994) in relation to the AR of ABH?

A

Word ‘actual’ indicated injury doesn’t have to be permanent

But shouldn’t be “so trivial as to be wholly insignificant”

28
Q

Does cutting someones hair amount to ABH?

A

Yes - DPP v Smith

D cut ex-girlfriends hair without her consent, held to be ABH

29
Q

Which case established that psychological harm can amount ABH?

A

Case of Chan-fook

Ct: have to be clinically recognised condition for ABH to apply - not just emotions such as fear/ panic

30
Q

Give 6 examples of ABH under the CPS charging standards

A
  1. Loss or breaking of teeth
  2. Loss of consciousness
  3. Extensive/ multiple bruising
  4. Minor fractures
  5. Minor cuts (might need stitching)
  6. Psychiatric injury
31
Q

What is the MR for ABH?

A

Same for assault + battery

D doesn’t have to be aware = any risk of harm

32
Q

Name 2 cases that illustrate the MR for ABH

A

R v Roberts (1978)

R v Savage (1992)

33
Q

R v Roberts (1978)

A

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

34
Q

R v Savage (1992)

A

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

35
Q

What did the courts say in the case of R v Savage (1992)?

A

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

36
Q

What is the difference between s20 + s18?

A

s20 has a lower level of MR

37
Q

What does the prosecution need to prove for a D to be convicted under s20? (AR)

A

That D either wounded V /inflicted GBH

Need to make sure that the D is charged correctly

38
Q

Define wounding

A

Breaking surface of skin
Minor cut = still be a wound
Internal bleeding = not

39
Q

What is the AR for wounding?

A

Breaking the surface of the skin

40
Q

Does internal bleeding count as wounding?

A

No
Surface of skin = not been broken
Therefore cannot be wound

41
Q

What case demonstrates the AR of wounding?

A

Wood (1830)
D broke V’s collar bone
But skin = still intact
Couldn’t be G of wounding

42
Q

Wood (1830)

A

D broke V’s collar bone
But skin = still intact
Couldn’t be G of wounding

43
Q

Define GBH

What case was this established in?

A

DPP v Smith (1961)

Held to mean ‘really serious harm’

44
Q

What do the Cts need to consider about the V when convicting someone of GBH?

A

Need to take into account characteristics of V (age + health)
Means that harm only has to be serious for them
R v Bollom (2003)

45
Q

What case demonstrates the fact that the GBH inflicted only has to be serious for them?

A

R v Bollom (2003)

46
Q

R v Bollom (2003)

A

V = 17 month old child
Suffered bruising + abrasions to her body, arm + legs
Court ruled that this = GBH taking into account age + fragility

47
Q

Can biological harm be GBH?

What case demonstrates this?

A

Yes
Can be accepted as GBH
R v Dica (2004) [HIV]

48
Q

R v Dica (2004)

A

D infected 2 women with HIV
Had unprotected sex with them knowing he = HIV +ve
He didn’t tell them

49
Q

What does ‘inflict’ in the AR for s20 GBH suggest?

A

It used to be thought that there had to be a direct application of force

50
Q

Under s20, does the application of force have to be direct?

What case illustrates this?

A

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

51
Q

R v Burstow (1997)

A

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

52
Q

Give 6 examples of s20 CPS charging standards

A
  1. Compound fractures
  2. Psychiatric injury
  3. Injuries - lengthy treatment/ incapacity
  4. Injuries - substantial loss of blood,
  5. Injury - permanent disability,
  6. Injury - disfigurement, displaced limbs/ bones
53
Q

What is the MR of s20 GBH?

A

D must intend to cause some harm/ be subjectively reckless
(s)he must be aware of risk of harm
NOT NECESSARILY SERIOUS

54
Q

What case confirmed the principle set in R v Cunningham (1957)?

A

R v Parmenter (1991)

55
Q

What was the word used in the act for the MR of GBH?

A

‘maliciously’
R v Cunningham (1957)
Held to just mean intention

56
Q

R v Parmenter (1991)

A 
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
57
Q

R v Grimshaw (1984)

A

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

58
Q

What is s18 OAPA?

A

Wounding/ causing GBH with intent

59
Q

What is the AR for s18?

A

Same as s20

60
Q

What is the MR for s18?

A

Requires intention to be proven

Prosecution must prove D intends to cause serious harm

61
Q

Is recklessness sufficient for the MR of s18?

A

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)

62
Q

What did the jury decide in R v Nedrick (1986) in relation to the MR of s18?

A

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

A2 Law (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions