Offences Against the Person and Defences to OAP Flashcards
Offences Against the Person Act 1861; 3 sections
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
Common Assault : 2 forms
• 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.’
Assault; Actus Reus
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)
Assault; Mens Rea
Intention or Subjective recklessness ( D is consciously awards of the risk of causing harm by his actions)
Battery; Actus Reus
- Force (physical contact) must be involved
- Physical Harm is not necessary
- The act must be non consensual.
- The act must involve infliction of unlawful force.
(Indirect force is sufficient: Santana-Bermudez)
Battery; Mens Rea
Intention or Subjective recklessness ( D is consciously awards of the risk of causing harm by his actions)
S. 47 OAtPA; Assualt occasioning Actual Bodily Harm; Actus Reus
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.
S. 47 OAtPA; Assualt occasioning Actual Bodily Harm; Mens Rea
– 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.
S. 20 OAtPA; Malicious wounding/Infliction of grievous bodily harm; Actus Reus
• Either a wounding, (penetration of both Layers of the skin)
OR An infliction of ‘ grievous bodily harm’
(requires hospitalization, surgery, broken limbs, psychiatric harm)
Inflicting someone with an STI
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
S. 20 OAtPA; Malicious wounding/Infliction of grievous bodily harm; Mens Rea
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
S. 18 OAtPA; Unlawful malicious wounding or causing GBH with intent to cause GBH; Actus Reus
- Wounding with intent to do GBH
- Causing GBH with intent to cause GBH
-The Actus Reus is the same as section 20
S. 18 OAtPA; Unlawful malicious wounding or causing GBH with intent to cause GBH; Mens Rea
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)
Need for Reform
-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’
Defences to OAP; Consent
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
Defences to OAP; Consent; sexual relations
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
Defences of Reasonable Reaction; the 3.
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
Duress of threats: Do this or I kill you
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)
Duress of Circumstances; Necessity
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)
Self-Defence Use of Force Permitted if:
- 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
Self-Defence
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)
Self Defence: Reasonableness
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.
