Offences against the person

Question 1

Fagan v MPC

Answer 1

Assault - any act which causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence

Question 2

R v Ireland; Burstow

Answer 2

silent telephone calls, “a thing said is also a thing done” words alone can be assault

Question 3

R v Wilson

Answer 3

includes words alone (“get out the knives”), was an assault

Question 4

R v Lamb

Answer 4

if V doesn’t apprehend violence (subjectively) then there’s no assault

Question 5

Logdon v DPP

Answer 5

even if D is unable to carry out the threat, it’s still an assault if V apprehends violence

Question 6

Blaue

Answer 6

Thin skull rule, if V is usually sensitive to perceiving threats, still counts, but if V is ridiculously sensitive, then there would be no MR

Question 7

Tuberville v Savage

Answer 7

words may negate the threats. Act of putting hand on sword was threatening but words negated it. BUT: depends on the circumstances, and subjective apprehension of V

Question 8

Smith v Woking Police

Answer 8

liberal interpretation of “immediate”. court said when terrified, not always sure what you’re scared of - so still an assault

Question 9

R v Constanza

Answer 9

case of stalking with lettres and phone calls, immediate = some time not excluding the immediate future

Question 10

R v Ireland; Burstow

Answer 10

must be physical violence, threat of psychological harm is not enough

Question 11

R v Venna

Answer 11

MR of assault: intention or recklessness as to causing the apprehension

Question 12

Fagan v MPC

Answer 12

“the actual intended use of unlawful force to another person without his consent

Question 13

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 13

the slightest touch will suffice (in this case it was a scratch)

Question 14

R v Thomas

Answer 14

Includes touching clothes

Question 15

Faulkner v Talbot

Answer 15

no hostility required - force doesn’t need to be hostile, rude or aggressive

Question 16

Haystead v DPP

Answer 16

includes indirect application of force (Haystead punched D in face, causing her to drop 4 month old baby)

Question 17

R v Martin

Answer 17

force need not be direct, closing exit doctors of theatre, as people were about to leave D turned off the lights causing panic - was an indirect battery

Question 18

DPP v K

Answer 18

leaving sulphuric acid in hand dryer amounted to a battery (But no MR)

Question 19

Fagan v MPC

Answer 19

omission generally not enough, you need a positive act

Question 20

DPP v Santana Bermudez

Answer 20

omission was a battery - needles in her pocket, failed to warn the police

Question 21

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 21

we impliedly consent to much of the contact in everyday life. most physical contact in everyday life not actionable because of implied consent

Question 22

R v Venna (battery)

Answer 22

intention or recklessness as to the force

Question 23

DPP v Little

Answer 23

refers to either assault or battery

Question 24

Santana-Bermudez

Answer 24

failure to inform of needles was held to cause ABH, R v Roberts/ R v Miller - applied - D had created a danger, and failed to avert it

Question 25

R v Miller

Answer 25

ABH means any hurt or injury calculated to infer with the health and comfort of V. The harm must be more than transient and trifling

Question 26

R v Chan Fook

Answer 26

psychological injury is include - harm is synonymous with injury - any non-trivial injury included

Question 27

Ireland; Burstow

Answer 27

must be a recognised psychiatric illness, not mere emotions such as fear or distress

Question 28

DPP v T

Answer 28

momentary loss of consciousness counts as ABH

Question 29

DPP v Smith

Answer 29

cutting of someone's hair - ABH

Question 30

AG Ref 6/1980

Answer 30

can't generally consent to anything greater than assault/battery, and not to harm

Question 31

R v Savage, Parmenter

Answer 31

no MR required as to any harm

Question 32

C v Eisenhower

Answer 32

The continuity of the whole skin must be broken - both layers of skin - dermis and epidermis. If blood is coming out, then probably broken, rupture of blood vessels internally wasn't enough to be a wound. Any break will do

Question 33

R v Wilson

Answer 33

inflict basically refers to causation; no need to commit assault to inflict GBH, the two are independent

Question 34

R v Burstow

Answer 34

nuisance telephone calls, but no actual attack on V, conviction upheld for GBH - psych. injury

Question 35

DPP v Smith

Answer 35

GBH means really serious harm

Question 36

R v Saunders

Answer 36

GBH is a serious harm

Question 37

Ireland; Burstow

Answer 37

consider the totality of injuries and the cumulative effect on V, Jury also to consider the particular characteristics of V (age, health),

Question 38

R v Mowatt

Answer 38

no need for D to foresee that their act might cause GBH, enough for D to foresee some physical harm to some person, even if minor

Question 39

Ireland; Burstow

Answer 39

no real difference between cause and inflict, s18 OAPA - same AR as s20

Question 40

R v Kennedy

Answer 40

s24 OAPA - 3 distinct offences created by 3 methods

Question 41

R v Gillard

Answer 41

spraying V - does count

Question 42

R v Marcus

Answer 42

no need for thing to be intrinsically harmful, could become noxious by amount given - is it 'hurtful, unwholesome, or objectionable' - taking into account the nature of substance + the quantity given

Question 43

R v Hill

Answer 43

Court looks as at 'whole object in actin as he had done' - ie. look at ulterior motive

Question 44

R v Weatherhall

Answer 44

D gave wife sleeping pill so he could look through her bag for letters to prove her adultery - held no intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy

Question 45

R v Cato

Answer 45

must be inherently dangerous, cause to injury in common use (e.g. heroin), counts as noxious even if administered to sb with a high tolerance to whom it is unlikely to do any particular harm