Offences Against the Person I Flashcards
What are the offence elements for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) under s. 47 OAPA 1861?
Need to establish an assault or battery was committed and that it caused the victim actual bodily harm.
What is required for a conviction under s. 47 OAPA 1861 regarding the perpetrator’s state of mind? (which case clarified this?)
Intention or recklessness as to causing harm is required, as clarified in R v Savage, R v Parmenter [1992].
Can you name key cases relevant to Assault Occasioning ABH under s. 47 OAPA 1861?
DPP v Little [1992], R v Roberts [1972], and R v Miller [1954].
What constitutes wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) under s. 20 OAPA 1861?
Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument
What mental state is required under s. 20 OAPA 1861 for inflicting wounding or GBH?
(What two cases?)
Requires intent or recklessness as to causing some harm, as seen in R v Mowatt [1968] and R v Brady [2007].
Which cases are important for understanding the term “wound” and “inflict” in the context of s. 20 OAPA 1861?
“Wound” cases include C (a minor) v Eisenhower [1984] and “inflict” discussed in R v Burstow [1998].
How does s.18 OAPA 1861 differ from s.20 OAPA 1861 in terms of required intent?
s.18 specifically requires intent to do GBH or prevent lawful apprehension, making it more severe in terms of intent requirement compared to s.20 which instead also includes recklessness.
Can you provide examples of cases that have defined the intent necessary for a conviction under s. 18 OAPA 1861?
Intent cases include R v Bryson [1985] and R v Taylor [2009].
What does the indictment process and alternative verdicts discussion entail in criminal proceedings? (= What case explains this?)
-Similar nature of sections a jury might/can drop s.18 and convict under s.20, or if they think they can go to s.47; they can go to pure battery or assault.
-Satisfied in R v Labaye
-Showed that you can satisfy with lesser offences if needed.
What is the debate around the Correspondence Principle vs. Constructive Liability in criminal law?
What two theorists would you under what legal authority?
-Constructive liability departs from the correspondence principle because, although mens rea is required for liability (that is to say, these are not strict liability offences), the required mens rea does not correspond with the level of harm required within the actus reus.
-discussed by Jeremy Horder and Barry Mitchell in several Criminal Law Review articles
