OAPA; ABH

Question 1

what type of crime is ABH

Answer 1

-result crime; D’s conduct results in an assault or battery against V which results in actual physical harm to V

Question 2

what is the AR of s.47 ABH

Answer 2

-D commits asaault/ battery on V which causes ABH

Question 3

what does the Law Comission’s Report 1993 say about AR of ABH

Answer 3

-requires proof of both
(1) assault and battery which
(2)causes ABH
for AR

Question 4

give 6key cases regarding AR of ABH

Answer 4

-R v Roberts; occasioned= caused, doesnt matter if unforeseeable
-R v Chan-Fook; ABH includes psychiatric injury but not mere emotions/ unidentified conditions
-Chan-Fook supported in R v Ireland; Burstow
-Morris; must be shown injury caused by D’s actions
-need not be serious/permanent but more than trifling (Reigate Justices ex parte Counsell, DPP v Smith, T v DPP)

Question 5

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Roberts

Answer 5

-occasioned= caused,
-doesnt matter if unforeseeable (unless it was so unexpected that no RP could expect it would it break the chain
-V jumped out of car to escape D’s sexual advancements
-D caused V’s ABH as V’s action was a natural consequence of D’s act

Question 6

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Chan-Fook and R v Ireland; Burstow

Answer 6

-ABH includes psychiatric injury but not mere emotions/ unidentified conditions
-CA held psychiatric injury should be supported by expert evidence
-in absence if evidence Q of if assault/battery caused psychiatric injury should NOT be left to jury
-Chan-Fook reasoning approved by HoLords in R v Ireland; Burstow

Question 7

what happened/ is the legal principle in Morris

Answer 7

-must be shown injury caused by D’s actions
-not enough that injury exists

Question 8

what happened/ is the legal principle in Reigate Justices ex parte Counsell (1984)

Answer 8

-ABH need not be serious/permanent but more than trifling
-mere bruising, grazings and causing of tenderness is sufficient

Question 9

what happened/ is the legal principle in DPP v Smith

Answer 9

-need not be serious/permanent but more than trifling
-D cuts ex girlfriends hair, convicted ABH

Question 10

what is the MR of ABH

Answer 10

D intends or was reckless as to whether V apprehends immediate and unlawful personal violence(assault) or sustains it (battery)

Question 10

what happened/ is the legal principle in T v DPP

Answer 10

-need not be serious/permanent but more than trifling
-temporary loss of consciousness is ABH

Question 11

give 4 cases regarding the MR of ABH

Answer 11

-recklessness (R v G&R)
-Roberts(1971); no need to foresee ABH + causation determined objectively
-Roberts supported by HoLords in Savage + Parmenter

Question 12

what happened/ is the legal principle in Roberts (1971) and Savage and Parmenter for MR

Answer 12

-no need to foresee ABH
-Stephenson LJ ; ABH is an issue of causation and is determined objectively
-was it a natural result of D’s actions/ was it reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the act
-HoLords supported this principle in Savage and Parmenter

Question 13

explain sentencing in regard to s.47 charges

Answer 13

-5 years max
-for injuries eg lost/broke tooth, temporary loss of sensory functions, bruising, broken nose, minor fractures(not superficial), cuts requiring medical treatment, psychiatric injury