Offences against the person Flashcards
Harassment / stalking offences
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
HARASSMENT - s2
Conduct that amounts to harassment: pursues conduct that causes another to fear violence, on at least 2 occasions.
MR - knows or ought know if reasonable person would think conduct amounts to harassment
STALKING - s2A
Examples in s2A(3).
s4A = conduct amounts to stalking and causes another to fear violence on 2 occasions or causes serious alarm or distress which has substantial effect on V’s day to day life
MR - knows or ought to know
Common law assault s39 CJA 1998
ACTUS REUS
An act which causes V to apprehend immediate unlawful violence (Stephen v Myers)
Tuberville v Savage
- conditional threats not sufficiently immediate
R v Ireland
- words alone can constitute assault
- silent phone calls were sufficient
MENS REA
Intentionally or recklessly (cunningham) caused V to apprehend immediate unlawful force - Venna
Battery s39 CJA 1998
Examples: minor bruising, superficial cuts, black eye, scratches, grazes
ACTUS REUS
The infliction of unlawful force on another
1. Physical contact Thompson - can be minor contact - touching of V's clothes sufficient - use of word 'violence' is misleading
- Direct or indirect
Haystead
- D pushed woman who dropped baby
Pursell v Horn
- can use instrument, not limited to body to body contact
- poured boiling water over V
- Non-consensual
Collins v Wilcock
- excludes everyday touching
Wilson v Pringle
- suggests element of hostility
- two young school boys
MENS REA
Intention or recklessness as to inflicting harm on another (Venna)
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) s47 OAPA 1861
ACTUS REUS
Assault or battery that CAUSES ABH: must establish causation
Millers (1954)
- defined ABH as hurt or injury that interferes with health or comfort of V
CPS guidelines: broken teeth, minor fractures, cuts that require stitching, multiple bruising, temp loss of unconsciousness
- Must be more than merely trivial
Chan Fook
- so that it is not wholly insignificant - Cutting hair
DPP v Smith
- can include cutting someones hair - Temp loss of unconsciousness
R v DPP
- includes temporary loss of unconsciousness
- D kicked V in the head - Psychiatric injury:
Millers (1954)
- injury to state of mind can indeed amount to ABH
Chan Fook
- excludes mere fear, distress or panic
Ireland
- psychiatric injury is matter of expert opinion
MENS REA
Only need intention or recklessness in relation to the assault or battery
Savage & Parmenter
- confirms no mens rea required as to ABH, only assault or battery
- D poured drink over V, glass slipped and cut V
Wounding s20 OAPA 1861
Actus reus of wounding?
Proscribes malicious wounding and infliction of GBH
ACTUS REUS OF WOUNDING
McLoughlin
- requires breaking of layers of skin
- graze not wound
Moriarty v Brookes
- bleeding from broken skin is wound even if single drop of blood
Eisenhower
- internal bleeding is not wound
MENS REA
Intention or recklessness as to some harm, does not need to be serious harm
Savage and Parmenter
- confirms Mowatt gloss, just need to intend or foresee SOME HARM
GBH s20 OAPA 1861
ACTUS REUS
Defined as ‘really serious harm’ - Smith
Real context
Bollom
- jury should consider health and age of V
- V was a baby
Psychiatric injury
Burstow
- ‘inflict’ GBH includes psych injury
- does not require assault to be committed
- D broke into V’s house, damaged her property, sent hate mail, scattered condoms in garden etc but no assault as no apprehension of immediate force
- caused V to suffer clinical depression
Transmission of sexual disease
Dica
- can amount to GBH if V is unaware
- if D conceals disease or intent on spreading it
MENS REA
Intention or recklessness as to some harm, not serious harm
Savage & Parmenter
- confirms Mowatt gloss
- do not need to intend or foresee serious harm
- constructive liability, easier to prove
Wounding/GBH with intent s.18 OAPA 1861
D acts with intent
- rarely successfully convicted as difficult to prove, no recklessness
- Genders (1999)
- life imprisonment
Racially/religiously aggravated assault
s29 Crime and Disorder Act 1998
s29 & s28
- Meaning of racial group
Pal
- association with members of group
- white man’s arse licker and brown englishman
AG’s Ref (no 4 of 2004)
- immigrant doctor
Rogers
- bloody foreigners
R v SH
- called nigerian employee a monkey
White; Johnson v DPP
- can be committed against own racial group
Woods
- only objective demonstration required
- D claimed he called doorman ‘black bastard’ out of annoyance not racism = irrelevant
- Immediately before of after
Parry v DPP
- give ordinary meaning
- 20 mins after committing offence called V an irish cunt when questioned by police
- not within immediate context of offence
Babbs
- D called V a fucking foreigner
- 15 mins later said “come outside” and headbutted him
- could be said to colour D’s behaviour towards V
Consent - to low levels of harm
Brown
- homosexual sadomasochistic activity that led to ABH and wounding could not be consented to
- not in public interest
Wilson
- consensual activity between husband and wife not matter for courts
- branding with hot knife akin to tattooing
Emmett
- cannot consent to serious harm
- strangulating, burning of nipples etc.
Consent - transmission of disease
Dica
- can consent to risk as long as D does not conceal it or intent on spreading it
Consent - sporting activities
Barnes
- implied consent within sporting activities as long as it is within the rules of the game
- was conduct beyond mere error of judgement?
- must consider pro sports have disciplinary procedures, crim law system as last resort
Consent - horseplay
Jones
- two boys tossing each other in the air
- can consent to horseplay as long as injury not intended
Aitken
- D’s set fire to officers wearing fire resistant clothing as practical joke which they did twice before
- open to find belief of consent
Consent - employment
H v CPS
- teacher worked at school for children with learning difficulties
- no implied consent
Law Chastisement
s58 Children Act 2004
only up to battery
