OAP Flashcards
Assault s39 criminal justice act
Cause the victim to fear immediate use of unlawful force
Smith v Chief Sup. Woking 1983 not instantaneous but not in distant
Intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to fear immediate unlawful force
Logdon v DPP
silence =assault r v ireland 1998 2-3 mins- silent calls
words can prevent-
tuberville v savage1668
no need for v to be put fear
anticipation of d forve on v is enough
personal violence- misleading expression or unwanted touch
Rv Constanza 1997
-threatening letters - the court reasoned that D
lived near V’s home, and V reasonably feared
Something might happen at any time.
Contemporaneity
the mens rea and actus reus must coincide at some point
Continuing act
Fagan v Mpc 1969
One series of acts
Thabo meli v r
Battery S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Unlawful application of force
Collins v Wilcock 1984
Intention or recklessness as to unlawful application of force
Fagan v MPC
DPP V K 1990 = doesnt need to be present
R v thomas = contact with clothing
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000]- The child’s fall to the floor had resulted directly from H’s assault . No distinction could be drawn between using the mother or a weapon as the relevant medium save that the latter involved intention and the former
recklessness.
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
S47 Offences Against The Person Act 1861
Causing actual bodily harm
(discomfort or injury)
R v Miller
Intention or recklessness as to..
assault - ..cause fear of immediate unlawful force OR R v Ireland
battery - ..application of unlawful force R v Roberts 1971 , Savage v parmenter 1991
Dpp v Smith (Michael)2006
Cutting hair amounted to ABH
R v Chanfook 1994
Only real psychiatric harm is covered
T v Dpp2003
Momentary loss of consciousness
Pain or discomfort are enough even without visible
injury – Reigate Justices, ex parte Counsell (1984)
Malicious Wounding
S18 Offences Against The Person Act 1861
Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm
Causing a wound
(breaking of the skin)
C v Eisenhower
moriarty v brookes 1834
Intention to cause grievous harm
R v Taylor
Both layers (dermis & epidermis) – McLoughlin (1838)
Rupture of internal vessels is not wounding – JCC (A
Minor) v Eisenhower (1984)
GBH: really serious bodily harm – DPP v
Smith [1961]
According to contemporary social standards
– Golding [2014] genital herpes
- however consent to the risk?)
Also the sum of many minor wounds
* Grundy [1989]
Also the sum of many minor wounds
* Grundy [1989]
Also psychological harm – Burstow [1998]
Psychiatric injury could amount to bodily harm. Dicta in Chan-Fook applied.
2. The word ‘inflict’ in s.20 simply means cause. There was thus no requirement that
physical force is directly or indirectly applied.
Inflicting:
– Broader meaning than assault
– No need to be an assault to inflict a wound
* Wilson [1984]
Savage and Parmenter [1992]
Now it means the same as causing and…
– … there is no need to apply physical
violence
* Burstow [1998]
Maliciously:
– Does not require ill-will or spite
– It simply means intentionally or recklessly
– Foresight is therefore enough
* Savage and Parmenter [1992]
But foresight (or intention) of what? Of GBH?
– No: some physical harm (not necessarily GBH)
* Mowatt [1968]
Wounding with Intent
* S 18 OAPA
“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any
grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent, to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist
* Actus reus: same as S 20
* Mens rea:
– Intention to cause GBH or
– Intention to prevent/resist an arrest
Intention to cause GBH
– GBH must be intended
– Not some harm
– No recklessness
* Intention to prevent/resist an arrest
– D reckless as to cause harm
* Unclear whether GBH or some harm – Morrison (1989)
– D intends to resist/prevent the lawful
apprehension or detention of any person
– Is no defence to show D thought the arrest was
unlawful – Bentley (1850)
Poisoning
Two offences of maliciously administering poison:
* S 23 OAPA
so as to endanger life or inflict GBH
“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily
harm, shall be guilty of felony”
S 23 OAPA … with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy any other person “Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious
thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy such person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor”
poisoning 23
Actus reus:
– administer/causing to be administered or taken
– Poison or other destructive/noxious thing:
a. Substances poisonous/noxious in nature (e.g. heroin)
b. Substances not harmful in nature but administered in
sufficient dose to be so (e.g. cod liver, sedative etc)
– Endangering life or inflicting GBH
* Mens rea S 23:
– Cunningham recklessness
– No need to show intention of danger or GBH
poisoning 24
Actus reus:
– administer/causing to be administered or taken
poison or other destructive/noxious thing: same
as S3
– No need for endangerment or GBH
* Mens rea S 24:
– Intention to inju
Racially/Religiously Aggravated Crimes
S 28 to 32 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created new category of racially/religiously aggravated crimes
Why do racial offences need a separate label and higher sentences?
* Because they injure not only V but also
– Their family
– The standards of decency of the community
* …by eroding trust and creating fear and anxiety
Race”: not a technical term, to be defined
widely (colour, ethnicity etc.) – Rogers [2007] and AG Ref (n. 4 of 2004)
* Two ways to show the offence is aggravated:
– S 28(1)(a): D demonstrated racial/religious hostility during or immediately before/after the
commission of the offence
– S 28(1)(b): the offence was motivated by D’s racial/religious hostility
