Offences against the person (OAPA)

Question 1

R v Constanza (1997)

Answer 1

Words are enough to constitute assault

Question 2

Horder 1998

Answer 2

Doesn’t have to be apprehension of fear (can be of being stroked or kissed)

Question 3

Wells 1997

Answer 3

Can be apprehension of phycological harm

Question 4

SECTION 39 criminal justice act 1988

Answer 4

Common Assault - causing another to apprehend immediate force on the body
Battery - inflicting unlawful force

Question 5

Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police

Answer 5

The defendant peered through the window of a young woman’s home late at night. He had entered the garden and went up to the window and peered through a gap in the curtain. The woman saw him and screamed but he did not move but kept staring she phoned the police.

An omission can constitute an assault

Question 6

R v Ireland (1997)

Answer 6

Silence and breathing can constitute assault
Stalker, silent phone calls
Lord Steyn “she may fear that POSSIBILITY of immediate personal violence”

Question 7

Logdon v DPP 1976

Answer 7

Can be assault even if there is no real danger

Unloaded or fake gun

Question 8

R (Kracher) v Leicester Magistrates Court

Answer 8

Conditional assault

“I’ll attack you if…” can constitute assault

Question 9

Tuberville v Savage (1669)

Answer 9

Words can negate assault

Telling the victim he was not going to stab him

Question 10

R v Thomas (1985)

Answer 10

Touching of clothes amounts to battery

Question 11

Collins v Wilcock (1984)

Answer 11

Goff LJ - to be unlawful must fall outside everyday contact

Question 12

DPP v K (1990)

Answer 12

Sulphuric acid in hand drier

Battery despite no direct force

Question 13

SECTION 47 Offences against the Person Act 1961

Answer 13

Actual Bodily Harm
ABH is a result crime from either assault or battery
MR for assault or battery, does not need to be for the ABH

Question 14

DPP v Smith (2006)

Answer 14

Cutting of ponytail amounted to ABH

Question 15

R v Savage (1992)

Answer 15

A woman wanted to throw beer at someone in a pub but by accident threw the glass cutting her (ABH)

Do not need MR for ABH just common assault or battery

Question 16

R v Roberts (1972)

Answer 16

Apprehension of force leads her to jump out of the car

Convicted of ABH

Question 17

S20 OAPA (1961)

Answer 17

GBH level 1 (5 year max sentence)

AR: Inflicting GBH
MR: Intention or RECKLESSNESS to “some harm”

Question 18

R v Burstow (1997)

Answer 18

GBH can include psychiatric injury

Question 19

R v Mowatt (1967)

Answer 19

MR for s20: Just need an awareness of some harm

Question 20

DPP v Parmenter (1992)

Answer 20

Defendant was convicted of S20 for injuries resulting from handling his baby roughly
He did not have a sufficient level of foreseeability so his conviction was quashed so s47

Question 21

R v Martin (1881)

Answer 21

Defendant blocked theatre exits and shouted “fire”
Despite the indirect nature
He was convicted of S20

Question 22

R v Sullivan (1981)

Answer 22

Swerved his car into pedestrians to scare them
He lost control causing GBH
However he only saw ‘psychiatric harm’ so his conviction was reduced to a s47 offence

Question 23

SECTION 18 OAPA 1961

Answer 23

Life imprisonment

MR: with intent to cause GBH, much narrower than S20

Question 24

Brown [1993]

Answer 24

Sadomasochism
Certain level of harm that cannot be consented to
Directed the jury not to find consent for S47 and S20

Question 25

Brown exceptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Answer 25

1. Sports
2. Bravado
3. Horseplay
4. Surgery
5. Tattooing and piercings
6. Religious flagellation
7. Consensual sex with STI

Question 26

R v Wilson (1996)

Answer 26

Wife begged husband to brand his initials on her bottom

Husbands conviction of ABH is overturned due to the Brown exceptions

Question 27

R v Emmett (1999)

Answer 27

Suffocated his wife and set fire to her breasts

Convicted of S20

Question 28

R v Lock; R v Blakemore

Answer 28

50 shades of grey cases
Contracts, safe-words
Jury acquitted these cases very quickly.

Question 29

GBH and STIs

R v Dica 2004

Answer 29

Women consented to unprotected sex but not with HIV
The judge followed Brown - no need to find consent
However appeal allowed - jury had to find consent; this became another Brown exception
Convicted of s20

Question 30

R v Konzani (2005)

Answer 30

Man with HIV had sex with 3 women
Did not consent to HIV

Section 20 offence