Offences Against the person Flashcards
Constanza 1997
Facts: D made silent phone calls, wrote things on V’s front door and regularly followed her. This led to V suffering from clinical depression
Held: CoA held that letters and words can amount to an act for an assault - words alone, written or verbal can amount to an act for a technical assault (psychic assault)
Technical assault (psychic assault)
Intentionally or recklessly causing another to apprehend immediate violence - no proof of harm is necessary
Battery
The intentional or reckless unlawful application of physical force - direct or indirect contact made
section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Assault and battery - summary offences
Collins v Wilcock 1984
Shows difference between assault and battery
Assault: an act that causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force on his person
Battery: the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person
MR: Intention or subjective recklessness
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1968
A technical (psychic) assault cannot be committed by omission
Facts: D’s refusal to move his car off of the police officers foot was a continuing act
(Santana-Bermudez contradicts this)
Santana-Bermudez 2003
Assault by omission
Held: where D, by act or word or omission or a combination creates a danger and thus exposes another to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury which materialises there is a basis for the actus reus of assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Facts: D allowed police officer to search their person, said they had no sharps on them, when V searched they were wounded by a needle
Omission - created a dangerous situation
Tuberville v Savage 1669
Held: Words can also negate a technical (psychic) assault
Facts: “If it were not such an assize time, I would not take such language from you” while he put his hand on his sword
Smith v Chief superintendant of Woking Police Station 1983
Held: Immediate does not mean instantaneous, it means imminent
R v G 2003
Subjective recklessness
Recent confirmation of use of ‘Cunningham reckless’
- D is reckless where he foresees the risk of harm and goes on to take that risk, unjustifiably
Thomas 1985
The slightest application of physical force may amount to an infliction
Held: This includes the touching of a victims clothing
Innes v Wylie 1844
Battery cannot be committed by omission: it needs to be a positive act
DPP v K 1997
Held: The application of force need not be direct
Facts: school kid put acid in a hand dryer, hid and V used the hand dryer blowing acid into their face
Slingsby 1995
Signet ring fisting - died - not guilty
Held: if ABH is caused but not intended or foreseen then consent is a defence to ABH
Barnes 2004
Consent can be a defence to ABH with sport as long as the injury came about as something that is a part of the game e.g. a tackle but not if it fell outside the rules of the game
Wilson 1997
Consensual branding - court found him not guilty
No intention to injure only as an expression of love
- Lord said they didn’t want to interfere with the matrimonial bed
Dica 2004
Sexual intercourse leading to HIV
If the women had consented to sex and the risk of HIV then this would be a defence e.g. someone who wants to have children with them
Clarence 1889
Principle: consent is only vitiated by fraud or mistake as to the identity of the actor or or the nature of the act
DPP v smith 2006
Hair is regarded to as part of the body
Ireland 1997
silent phone calls, words written or verbal can amount to an assault
Eisenhower
A wound is defined as a break in the continuity of the whole skin
Bollom 2003
GBH is defined as really serious harm
