Offences Against the Person and Defences to OAP

Question 1

Offences Against the Person Act 1861; 3 sections

Answer 1

s. 18 Unlawful malicious Wounding or causing GBH with Intent to cause GBH
s. 20 Malicious wounding/ infliction of GBH
s. 47. Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

Question 2

Common Assault : 2 forms

Answer 2

• Assault:
‘A person is guilty of assault if he intentionally or recklessly leads someone to expect the (non consensual) application to his body of immediate unlawful force.’

• Battery
‘Any act by which D, intentionally or recklessly, inflicts (non consensual) unlawful force upon P.’

Question 3

Assault; Actus Reus

Answer 3

acting so as to lead victim to expect immediate unlawful force:
(i) Threat of Force (pointing a gun at someone, rolling up ones sleeves, threatening calls, making as if to kiss)

(ii) Threat of Immediate Force
It is sufficient that the victim thinks it could be immediate (doesn’t actually have to be that immediate)

• (iii) Threat of immediate unlawful force
(must be Unlawful Force, not if getting arrested, self defence, or consented to)

Question 4

Assault; Mens Rea

Answer 4

Intention or Subjective recklessness ( D is consciously awards of the risk of causing harm by his actions)

Question 5

Battery; Actus Reus

Answer 5

1. Force (physical contact) must be involved
2. Physical Harm is not necessary
3. The act must be non consensual.
4. The act must involve infliction of unlawful force.
   (Indirect force is sufficient: Santana-Bermudez)

Question 6

Battery; Mens Rea

Answer 6

Intention or Subjective recklessness ( D is consciously awards of the risk of causing harm by his actions)

Question 7

S. 47 OAtPA; Assualt occasioning Actual Bodily Harm; Actus Reus

Answer 7

Actus Reus
There are 3 elements in this offence:
• A common assault (Assault or Battery)
• Actual bodily harm (hurt that interferes with the health and com for of the individual, i.e significant bruising or cuts that need stitches)
• A causal link between the assault and the harm.

Question 8

S. 47 OAtPA; Assualt occasioning Actual Bodily Harm; Mens Rea

Answer 8

– Intention and foresight as to the assault or battery. NO need for Mens Rea for the harm.

Violence is inherently Unlawful so you cannot consent to it.

Question 9

S. 20 OAtPA; Malicious wounding/Infliction of grievous bodily harm; Actus Reus

Answer 9

• Either a wounding, (penetration of both Layers of the skin)

OR An infliction of ‘ grievous bodily harm’
(requires hospitalization, surgery, broken limbs, psychiatric harm)

Question 10

Inflicting someone with an STI

Answer 10

S. 20 OAtPA; Sex where one party has an STI and the other is unaware, no Consent can be formed. Its an Infliction of GBH

R v Dica

Question 11

S. 20 OAtPA; Malicious wounding/Infliction of grievous bodily harm; Mens Rea

Answer 11

Mens Rea “malice” = intention or recklessness
→Intention
–Includes direct and indirect intention
– Of ‘some’ harm

→Recklessness

• Requires foresight
• BUT NOT NECESSARILY to the full extent of V’s injury

Question 12

S. 18 OAtPA; Unlawful malicious wounding or causing GBH with intent to cause GBH; Actus Reus

Answer 12

1. Wounding with intent to do GBH
2. Causing GBH with intent to cause GBH

-The Actus Reus is the same as section 20

Question 13

S. 18 OAtPA; Unlawful malicious wounding or causing GBH with intent to cause GBH; Mens Rea

Answer 13

What differs S. 18 from S. 20
• Section 18 requires a specific intention to cause GBH to resist/prevent an arrest.
(recklessness is not enough)

Question 14

Need for Reform

Answer 14

-Wounding: is it still relevant?
-Same sentence for section 47 and 20
Causing GBH with intention…. to do what?
-Section 18, confusing between wounding and GBH and the Mens Rea of ‘intention to cause GBH’

Question 15

Defences to OAP; Consent

Answer 15

Express Consent & Implied Consent (to everyday contact)

Consent can be Vitiated by:

Lack of Mental Capacity (intoxication, illness)
Burrell v Harmer

Fraudulent Misrepresentation as to the Nature and purpose of the Act:
Re B

Intentional Harms cannot be Consented to
AGR#6

Question 16

Defences to OAP; Consent; sexual relations

Answer 16

Consent can be vitiated by:

Sexual relations involving intentional harm are not lawful
R v Brown

BUT
Consensual sex resulting in Harm can be lawful so long as the harm is incidental and not for harms sake:
r v Slingsby
r v Wilson

Question 17

Defences of Reasonable Reaction; the 3.

Answer 17

D threatens V with Death unless he beats up X

Duress: V beats up X (no need in law for self sacrifice)

Self-Defence: V turns on and beats up D

Necessity: D moves to attack X and V pushes X. Faced with 2 evils permitted to take a step which is the lesser of the two

Question 18

Duress of threats: Do this or I kill you

Answer 18

A) threat of serious Injury or death
B) D’s participation in crime is due to that threat
C) Threat made to D, His family, or someone he is responsible for
D) D must genuinely and reasonably believe the threat
E) Must seem objectively reasonable (r v Howe)
F) Must be no evasive action thats reasonable
G) D cannot rely on threats which he has voluntarily laid on himself (gang usually r v sharp)

Question 19

Duress of Circumstances; Necessity

Answer 19

Originally Rejected: Dudley v Stephens

Accepted as an Excuse in case of Emergency
r v Conway
r v Martin

D must prove that from an objective point he was acting reasonable to avoid the threat of death or injury

Necessity as a justification (medical cases)
RE F
RE A (conjoined twins)

Question 20

Self-Defence Use of Force Permitted if:

Answer 20

• D defends himself against an attack: R v Backford
• D defends another against an attack: R v Rose
• D defends his property against an attack: AGR#2

-D acts to prevent the commission of an offence
S. 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967

Question 21

Self-Defence

Answer 21

Elements:

A) D honestly believes in the facts which justify his attack (even if he is mistaken)

B) D’s force must be reasonable/proportionate to the offence

(D also does not need to retreat from the possibility of an attack R v Field)

Question 22

Self Defence: Reasonableness

Answer 22

The Force must not be disproportionate to the threat:
S. 76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

It is an Objective question as to Reasonableness
R v Martin
(changed by s.43 Crime and Courts Act 2013)

IF D’s use of force is held to be disproportionate than as per s. 55 Coroners and justice Act 2009, if V dies then he is guilty of manslaughter.