- Non-fatals Against A Person Flashcards
Read v Coker 1853
FACTS- D and his men surrounded V and threatened to ‘break his neck’ if he didn’t leave’
RATIO- Considered an assault as the conditions attached to the threat were not enough to nullify it
AR/MR?- AR complete as D caused fear to V. Does not matter they offered him the opportunity to walk away
Ireland and Burstow 1997
FACTS- D carries out 8 months of harassment, V suffered from severe depression as a consequence of this
RATIO- An assault can consist of any act causing the V to apprehend an immediate application of force upon them
AR/MR?- Act/words must cause V to apprehend immediate that immediate force is going to be used against them
Logdon 1976
FACTS- D pointed an imitation gun at V. D said it was not real
RATIO- Assault committed as V threatened and V apprehended immediate unlawful personal violence
AR/MR?- Assault requires some act or words. what amounts to an act?
Lamb 1967
FACTS- D thought gun was safe. Gun went off killing V
RATIO- No assault as V did not fear- he believed the gun to be safe
AR/MR?- AR- V must apprehend immediate unlawful force upon them for an assault
Ramos 2000
FACTS- D distributed racist letters threatening a bomb attack
RATIO- Initially acquitted due to a lack of immediacy the decision was reversed on appeal to state the key ingredient should be the fear on V. As their fear is the main ingredient for assault to have been committed.
AR/MR?- AR- there must be an apprehension of immediate unlawful force on V for there to be an assault
Smith v Chief Super Intendent of Wokin Police Station 1983
FACTS- D frightened V by looking through her bedroom window- she was terrified although there was means of entry for D into the property
RATIO- Court held V was frightened by D. V did not know what D was going to do next, but it was likely to be violent conduct- assault stands
AR/MR?- AR- there must be an immediate apprehension of unlawful force on V for assault to stand
Constanza 1997
FACTS- D stalked a lady he developed an infuriation with, wrote over 800 letters and waited outside of her workplace
RATIO- Charged with ABH S.47 OAPA, Judy we’re entitled in the circumstances to find that immediacy was present and words can amount to assault
AR/MR?- AR- the interpretation of immediate is loose
Mohan 1976
FACTS- D drove his car at a police officer, police officer was not hit- attempted ABH (NG). D lacked intent for the attempt
RATIO- D’s aim or purpose was to bring about the assault is the key ingredient in MR (direct intent)
AR/MR?- MR- intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful violence is MR for assault
Cunningham 1957
FACTS- D tore the gas meter off the wall and has seeped into his neighbours house- she became unwell
RATIO- D was reckless as to whether such harm should occur to V or not
AR/MR?- MR- recklessness is sufficient for MR for assault
Collins and Willock 1984
FACTS- D was a police officer trying to hold a women for her identity, V scratched D to free herself
RATIO- D (police officer) committed battery as he was not acting under his duty as he wasn’t arresting her
AR/MR?- AR- “Force” can be as light as a touch
DPP v K 1990
FACTS- D took acid from school lesson and hid it in hand dryer in fear of being caught, V used hand dryer and got hurt by acid
RATIO- D charged of assault but appealed as he didn’t intend to hurt V. Prosecution appealed and said a common assault can be caused by an INDIRECT ACT
AR/MR?- AR- an indirect act can amount to a assault contributing to battery
DPP v Santana-Bermudez 2003
FACTS- V was a policewomen searching D. V asked if there was any needles/something that can harm her in D’s pockets. D said no and upon search, V was stabbed
RATIO- Divisional Court held that V’s failure to tell D of the needle could amount to the AR doe the purposes of assault. D was charged
AR/MR?- AR- an omission can cause liability for an assault
Fagan v MPC 1969
FACTS- D accidentally parked on V’s foot. When V told him to move D failed to for serveral minutes
RATIO- HOL set the definition of assault. D was charged of battery as it was a continuing act. At the start when he drove on his foot by accident, and he then drove off he wouldn’t be guilty
AR/MR?- AR- a continuing act can amount to an assault/battery
Miller 1954
FACTS- D threw his wife to the floor on multiple occasions and raped her
RATIO- “Actual bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the Victim”
AR/MR- There has to have been an assault which amounted to ABH for a ABH charge
T v DPP 2003
FACTS- V was chased by a group of youths, he fell and covered his head. He was kicked and suffered a short loss of consciousness
RATIO- D was concocted of assault occasioning ABH
AR/MR?- AR- “losing consciousness can amount to ABH” - What is ABH?
DPP v Smith 2006
FACTS- D broke into his ex-girlfriends house and cut off her ponytail
RATIO- Cutting V’s hair can amount to ABH. The harm must be actual it cannot be small and trivial
AR/MR?- “cutting hair” can amount to ABH- Proving ABH has occurred
Chan Fook 1994
FACTS- V struck D many times. Locked V in room, V tried to escape via window but fell, suffering injuries as a consequence
RATIO- Conviction quashed- “To amount ABH, the injury need not be permanent but should not be so trivial to be wholly significant”
AR/MR?- injury cannot be so trivial to be wholly significant
DPP v K 1990- ABH CASE TYPE
FACTS- D places acid in a hand dryer and V used the hand dryer. His hands were burnt by the acid
RATIO- Charged of ABH was acquitted as he didn’t intend to harm anyone. Queens bench ruled assault can be committed by an indirect act
AR/MR- an indirect act can amount to an assault
Cunningham 1957- ABH TYPE CASE
FACTS- D tore glass meter off wall and gas seeped into his neighbours house- neighbour became unwell
RATIO- D was reckless as to whether such harm could occur or not
AR/MR?- MR- D must intend or be subjectively reckless as to where V fears or is subjected to unlawful force
Savage and Parmenter
FACTS- D threw a drink at V, glass slipped cutting V’s wrist
RATIO- it is unnecessary that the accused should either, have intended or foreseen his act may have caused GBH
AR/MR?- MR- D does not have to intend or be reckless about causing ABH
JCC v Eisenhower 1984
FACTS- The V was hit in the eye with a shotgun pellet. This did not penetrate the eye but did cause server bleeding under the surface
RATIO- Even a broken bone is not considered a wound, unless the skin is broken as well
AR/MR?- AR- What is a wound? There has to be a cut or break in continuity of the whole skin for there to be a ‘wound’ contributing to the AR of s.20 GBH
Morlarty v Brookes 1834
FACTS- The D was a publican. He argued with a customer over a disputed payment and struck him causing a cut below his eye. The publican argues he asked the V to leave and he has refused to do so and the force was lawfully applied ejecting him from the pub
RATIO- Wounding requires both layers of skin to be broken
AR/MR?- Did D wound V?
Wood 1830
FACTS- The victims collarbone was broken but the skin was intact
RATIO- A broken bone is not a wound
AR/MR?- AR- what must break to demonstrate a wound? The skin
Cunningham 1957- GBH CASE TYPE
FACTS- D tore the gas meter off the wall. Gas seeped into neighbours house, neighbour became unwell
RATIO- ‘maliciously’ simply means an intention to do the particular kind of harm that was done, or RECKLESSNESS as to whether such harm should occur or not
AR/MR?- AR + MR- Is recklessness classed as “malicious”
DPP v Smith 1961
FACTS- Policeman tried to stop D driving off with stolen goods by jumping on his car bonnet. D zigzagged to throw police officer off his car, police officer was hit by an oncoming car when falling off D’s car and died
RATIO- GBH means really serious harm
AR/MR?-MR- intention for GBH is now a subjective test. The old objective test does not apply
Lewis 1974
FACTS- D shouted threats to his wife through the door of a second floor window. She was scared and jumped out breaking both legs
RATIO- A technical assault or battery is not always needed- infliction I’d harm can be broadly interpreted
AR/MR?- AR- Inflict has a very broad meaning
Parmenter 1991
FACTS- D threw his child in the air and broke more than one limb
RATIO- D must at least see some harm may result
AR/MR?- MR- Subjective recklessness. D must foresee the harm
Burstow 1994 S.20 GBH CASE
FACTS- D carried out an 8 month harassment against V. Including silent and abusive phone calls, hate mail and stalking. This caused V to suffer from severe depression. D was convicted of S.20 OAPA
RATIO- It only needs to be shown that D’s actions have led to the consequence of V suffering GBH
AR/MR?- AR- What classes as grevious bodily harm
Dica 2004
FACTS- D has consensual inter course with the two V’s but failed to inform them he was HIV positive, both V’s contracted HIV
RATIO- giving someone a disease knowingly can amount to GBH
AR/MR?- AR- Biological GBH can amount to S.20
Bollom 2003
FACTS- A 17 month old child had bruising to her abdomen, arms and legs. D was convicted of GBH s.20
RATIO- Bruising like in Bollom, on an adult would be less serious
AR/MR?- What is Grievous Bodily Harm?
