Offences Against the Person Flashcards
OAPA Section 18
Wounding/causing GBH w/ intent.
Life max.
Actus reus;
Wound: Breaking of skin
GBH: Really serious harm including disability, requiring surgery/treatment, broken bones
Mens rea: Intention to cause GBH or resist arrest/resist apprehension of another
OAPA Section 20
Malicious wounding/infliction of GBH. Max 5yrs. Infliction narrower than causing. Doing something intentionally that causes force to be applied to V, resulting in GBH. Psychiatric illness may be 'inflicted'. STDs may come under S20
OAPA Section 47
Assault occasioning ABH Max 5yrs Actus reus: An assault ABH Causal link between the two. Assault: Infliction of force. Causing V to apprehend the infliction of force. ABH: Hurt or injury calculated to interfere w/ health & comfort. Foresight of harm unnecessary.
OAPA Section 24/23
S24: Unlawfully and maliciously administering any poison or noxious thing.
S23: As above, causing GBH or endangering life.
Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39
Assault and battery.
6 months max.
Often charged over s47, easier to convict.
R v Emmett 1999
Held- Consent may form a defence in some circumstances, but risk of permanent injury outweighs consent to sado-masochism.
Burrell v Harmer 1967
D tattooed D1+2, aged 12/13.
Convicted of assault.
Held on appeal- If D1+2 were unable to appreciate the nature of the act then consent is vitiated.
D rightly convicted, appeal dismissed.
R v Boyea 1992
D inserted hand into V’s vagina.
Judge directed consent irrelevant if actions likely/intended to harm.
On appeal- Assault intended or likely to cause harm and is indecent is an offence irrespective of consent, provided the injury is not ‘transient or trifling.’
Faulkner v Talbot 1981
V, 14, left home and lived w/ D. Shared bed after horror film. D invited V to have sex. V resisted, D pulled him on top and inserted penis into vagina. D convicted of indecent assault. Crown Court: No explicit offence prohibiting intercourse w/ boy under 16. Touching a prelude, not indecent assault in and of itself. Appeal dismissed. Further: D intentionally touched V. Touching was, by nature, indecent. V could not give consent (Age). Indecent assault made out. Appeal dismissed.
R v St George (1840)
D and V had altercation. D pulled out a pistol. Attempted to fire on V. V held muzzle of gun, prevented firing. D convicted of assault.
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
D put hand upon sword, stating ‘If it were not assizes time, I would not take such language from you.’
Held: Not an assault.
Declared that he would not strike V.
No reason to apprehend violence.
Savage and Parmenter 1991
Parmenter: Handled child roughly causing serious injury.
Savage: D threw drink over V, an ex-gf of her husband.
Let go of glass, injuring V upon breaking.
D claimed breakage was unintentional.
Held: Substituting S47 for Parmenter, dismissing Savage, that it is enough that SOME harm is foreseen, not necessarily the harm suffered.
Savage’s action ‘malicious.’
Attorney General’s References 25, 26 & 27 of 1995
Defendants ran a fairground.
One struck on head w/ baseball bat during altercation.
Defendants armed themselves, attacked group of black youths.
Unrelated to original attack.
One victim suffered fractured skull and severe brain damage.
Defendants sentenced, AG asked for review.
Held: That the defendants were armed, racial element and severity of injury, sentences lenient.
All increased.
Ireland & Burstow 1997
Ireland: D made a number of silent calls to three women.
Convicted of S47 OAPA 1861.
Burstow: Harassed woman he’d had social relationship with.
V stated to have severe depressive illness.
D convicted of inflicting GBH w/ intent (S20).
Held: Dismissing both appeals, that contemporary knowledge of psychiatric injuries bring them within ‘bodily harm’, even though acts may not be specifically directed at the victim.
Assault may be committed by silence, causing V to fear immediate unlawful violence.
R v Aitken 1992
Three defendants and V were RAF officers who had completed training.
Setting fire to fire resistant suits.
V decided to leave, defendants set fire to him.
Defendants convicted of GBH.
On appeal: Section 20 does not require specific intent, objective judgement of risk, drunkenness does not vitiate.
D1-3 did not intend to harm.
V had taken part in earlier horseplay, consent was implied.
Judge did not direct jury, affecting their judgement of unlawfulness.
Verdicts unsafe, convictions quashed.