Offences Against the Person Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

OAPA Section 18

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

OAPA Section 20

A
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

OAPA Section 47

A
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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

OAPA Section 24/23

A

S24: Unlawfully and maliciously administering any poison or noxious thing.
S23: As above, causing GBH or endangering life.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39

A

Assault and battery.
6 months max.
Often charged over s47, easier to convict.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Emmett 1999

A

Held- Consent may form a defence in some circumstances, but risk of permanent injury outweighs consent to sado-masochism.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Burrell v Harmer 1967

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v Boyea 1992

A

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.’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Faulkner v Talbot 1981

A
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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v St George (1840)

A
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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Tuberville v Savage (1669)

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Savage and Parmenter 1991

A

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.’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Attorney General’s References 25, 26 & 27 of 1995

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Ireland & Burstow 1997

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v Aitken 1992

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Nichol 1807

A

D sexually abused a student while covering classes at a school his wife ran.
Held that, though she consented, it was borne out of fear/intimidation of his age and position of authority.
Fear amounted to simple assault.
Likely charged under sexual assault act now.

17
Q

R v Venna 1976

A

D part of group creating disturbance in early hours.
Police instructed them to go home, group refused.
Officer grabbed D, who resisted, lashing out.
Fractured officer’s hand.
Convicted of assault occasioning ABH.
Appeal: D had no intent.
Held: Fine line between recklessness and intent.
Conviction safe, appeal dismissed.

18
Q

Smith v Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station 1983

A

D entered grounds of private house.
Looked through window at elderly lady.
V saw him staring for a few seconds before jumping towards the window, screaming.
Convicted contrary to Vagrancy Act, purpose to assault V.
D caused her to fear immediate, unlawful violence.
Specific fear not required.

19
Q

T v DPP 2003

A

After an earlier attack, D was part of a group that chased V.
V fell, D kicked him in the head.
D was awoken by a police officer.
Certified question: Is temporary loss of consciousness sufficient for ABH?
Focus on language. Transient is, by nature, temporary.
Held: Plainly within ABH.
Excludes triviality, which unconsciousness is not.
Appeal dismissed.

20
Q

R v Waltham 1849

A

D kicked V in the privates.
Urethra lining ruptured, pissed blood.
Held to be sufficient for a wound within S20.
Urethra a cavity continuous with outside of the skin, same tissue as inside of cheek.

21
Q

C v Eisenhower 1984

A

D fired a pellet gun at a group, hitting V in the left eye.
Eye shown to have blood in the fluid.
D charged W/ wounding w/ intent.
Supervision order made fine given.
D appealed; Was D guilty of wounding?
Held: No. Numerous instances distinguished.
Conviction quashed.

22
Q

R v Martin 1881

A

D closed and bolted theatre doors.
Crush ensued, two seriously injured (Fractured skull).
Held: D intended to cause alarm.
Intended to block the exit.
‘Prisoner must be taken to have intended the natural consequences of that which he did.’
No personal malice, but committed an unlawful act calculated to injure.
Conviction correct.

23
Q

DPP v Santa Bermudez 2003

A

Officer declared intent to search.
Asked D to turn out pockets, asked about sharps.
Upon search V’s middle finger pricked by needle, D smirked.
D tested positive for HIV & Hep C.
V not infected.
Held: D created danger and exposed V to risk of harm.
DPP v K, acid in hand dryer.