Offences Against The Person Flashcards
What is the definition of common assault?
An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force on his person
Collins v Wilcock 1984
What is the Actus Reus of common assault?
The defendant must perform an act that makes the victim apprehend immediate force/violence.
All three elements need to be established
The act-must be positive, not an omission. The act can include conduct and words (R v Ireland 1998) including silence
Apprehension- of violence-expectation.
Immediate force-Smith v Chief superintendent, Woking police station (1983) (looking through a closed window at night amounted to assault (courts take a broad view of immediacy)
Definition found in common law but the offence stated in section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Which case drive over a police officers foot then refused to move the car?
Fagan v MPC 1969
shows the elements of the offence
‘Intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’.
What is the Men’s Rea of assault?
Intention to cause or subjectively reckless to cause apprehension of immediate unlawful violence.
( the defendant must foresee a risk that the victim will apprehend immediate unlawful violence). (cunningham recklessness)
What is the definition of battery?
A battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person
Collins v Wilcock 1984
What is the AR of battery?
Direct or indirect physical contact
Haystead 2000-baby was indirectly hurt through mother dropping baby
Unlawful-non consensual. And must be more than implied consent from everyday life such as jostling on the underground-Collins v Wilcock 1984)
Physical contact-must be some physical contact however minor (Thomas 1985) touching clothing whilst worn will amount to battery.
A lot of the time a battery will. Involve no violence or very minor injury.
What is the men’s rea of battery?
The intention/subjective recklessness to inflict force upon the victim. (R v Vienna 1976)
What is assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
S47 Offences against the person act 1861
AR -the Actus Reus of assault/battery that caused actual bodily harm
Therefore the difference between assault/battery and s47 ABH is the level of harm.
Donovan 1934 described ABH as harm that ‘is more than merely transient or trifling”
What is the men’s rea of ABH?
The intention or subjective recklessness to cause a common assault or battery only
There is no requirement that the defendant intending to cause ABH or foresaw a risk that his actions would cause ABH.
R v Savage 1992 (even though defendant did not intend to break the glass , they will still be convicted under s47.
What is the AR and MR of (malicious) wounding and inflicting grievous bodily harm?
S20 OAPA 1861
AR: Wounding Inflicting GBH Definition of GBH “a wound is a break in the continuity of both layers of the skin” C v Eisenhower 1984
“‘really serious harm” DPP v Smith 1961
MR:
Intention or subjective recklessness to wound /and inflict GBH
DPP v Parmenter 1992-found recklessness is subjective to defendant but foresight of magnitude of consequence was not required, just consequence.
What is grievous bodily harm with intent?
S18 OAPA 1861 -most serious non fatal offence against the person.
AR: wounding / causing GBH.
MR: intention/ reckless to cause wounding or GBH (like s 20)
Defendant must intend to cause GBH rather than general intention to cause harm/ resist arrest.
Section 18, allows GBH caused by omission whereas section 20 needs a positive act,
Are there any defences that allow the unlawfulness of the force used?
Yes- consent can be given that allows a balance between preventing harm and personal autonomy.
Generally, consent is only a defence to assault and battery, it isn’t a defence to ABH or GBH ( Attorney generals reference no 6 1980)
However, there are exceptions to this rule where consent to injuries is permitted.
Lawful surgery, ear piercing and tattooing, proper sporting activities, manly horseplay
In R v Brown 1994, HOL ruled that consent can only be a defence for assault or battery and not where actual bodily harm occurred. It would not extend the category to include consensual sexual activity-not in public interest to cause bodily harm for no good reason.
Why was R v Wilson 1997 allowed?
Consent was given as it was done for the purposes of adornment that was similar to a tattoo-it wasn’t for sexual gratification. (branding).
R v Emmett 1999
No consent permitted as injury was for sexual pleasure and cannot be justified in the public interest.
