Question Example Practice Flashcards
GROSFILS works as a chef in a restaurant. He dislikes the poor work of KELLOCK, a kitchen assistant, so says to KELLOCK: “If you don’t do better tomorrow I will give you a good kicking.” KELLOCK is worried by this comment, believing GROSFILS to mean it and the next day he is too frightened to go to work. Does GROSFILS commit an offence of common assault contrary to Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988?
No, there is no immediate apprehension of violence.
An offence of common assault has not been committed because KELLOCK does not apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence.
CRONIN is having an argument with LEE in a public house. The argument is very heated. CRONIN loses his temper and starts throwing his arms around indiscriminately. As a result of this, one of CRONIN’S arms hits SYKES in the face. CRONIN bears no malice towards SYKES and did not intend to injure her. Has CRONIN committed the offence of Common Assault, contrary to Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988?
Yes, CRONIN was reckless in the way he used his arms
SMITH discovers that EDWARDS has been spreading lies about him in local bars and clubs. SMITH decides to warn EDWARDS and confront him in the street. He shakes his fist, telling EDWARDS: “If you don’t pack it in with your lies I will smash your face in.” EDWARD believes he is about to be assaulted and runs off terrified. EDWARDS later reports this incident to the police. Has SMITH committed the offence of Common Assault contrary to Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988?
Yes, EDWARDS feared he was about to be assaulted.
An assault under Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. Note that although the victim needs to apprehend this violence, he/she doesn’t necessarily need to be in fear (but fear would certainly constitute apprehension). Even if SMITH did not intend EDWARDS to apprehend violence, he was reckless as he would have foreseen this as a possibility from his actions.
PATTINSON and VARDY have fearsome reputations as violent men in their local area. Both men are drinking in the BLACK BULL public house when they begin to argue about who is the best fighter. VARDY aggressively pushes PATTINSON off his barstool in order to gain an advantage in an imminent fight between them. PATINS lands on the foot-rail of the bar and fractures his jaw in two places. Does VARDY commit the offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to Section 20 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861?
Yes, because VARDY would have realised there is a risk of some harm being caused to PATTINSON.
VARDY has committed the offence because VARDY would have realised there is a risk of some harm being caused to PATTINSON, and the harm caused is of sufficient seriousness to amount to S20 GBH.
KELSEY attends a 21st birthday party where alcohol is being consumed. BRACE suddenly appears in front of KELSEY holding a glass in her hand. For no reason and without warning she slaps KELSEY in the face whilst holding the glass. As a result of the blow, KELSEY suffers a broken cheekbone and deep cut to the skin. When interviewed by the police, BRACE states that she was drunk at the time and mistook KELSEY for someone else and slapped KELSEY in the face, not realising she was still holding a glass. Ignoring any possible defences, does BRACE commit an offence of Causing Grievous Bodily Harm, contrary to Section 18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in these circumstances?
No, BRACE does not commit this offence as she did not intend to inflict grievous bodily harm.
BERESFORD has been arrested by PC CLYDE at a supermarket, for the offence of shoplifting. Constable CLYDE escorts BERESFORD through the busy checkout area of the store, in order to take him to a waiting police vehicle. BERESFORD sees an opportunity to escape by causing an accident in the busy, tightly packed crowd near the tills. He trips up PC CLYDE and runs off. PC CLYDE falls forward suddenly and accidentally head butts a store customer, DURAN. DURAN’S cheek bone breaks as a result. Has BERESFORD committed an offence of causing Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent, contrary to S18 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861?
Yes, BERESFORD intended to resist his detention and was reckless as to the outcomes of tripping PC CLYDE.
Unlike the first limb of S18 GBH with intent, where it is necessary for the offender to intend to cause GBH, this second limb only requires an intent of resisting/preventing arrest, together with ‘maliciousness’, that is a recklessness as to whether some harm would be caused by his actions. Although BERESFORD did not intend to cause GBH, he was reckless in his actions and would have foreseen some possible harm.
TANNER is pushing her 6-month-old daughter in a pram through the local park when she is approached by CRAMPTON. CRAMPTON produces a kitchen knife and demands money from TANNER, threatening to cut the face of her baby unless she complies. TANNER screams. ALDEN is walking nearby. He hears CRAMPTON making the threat and believes that CRAMPTON will carry it out. ALDEN runs up behind CRAMPTON and punches him hard on the head in an attempt to rescue TANNER. CRAMPTON drops the knife and runs away empty handed. Is ALDEN protected from prosecution by Section 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 in these circumstances by using reasonable force to prevent crime?
Yes, Section 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 applies to any person who uses reasonable force as necessary to prevent crime
Section 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 states that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime. Clearly TANNER was in the process of committing a crime. The reasonableness of ALDEN’S actions should be judged against the circumstances as he honestly believed them to be. If ALDEN’S use of force was disproportionate, then it would not be reasonable. It is certainly reasonable to punch someone in the head who is threatening.
TILL owns a new car which he parks on the driveway of his home. At 2:30 am he is woken by the sound of a car alarm sounding in the street. He looks out of his bedroom window and sees VALE is about to break into his car. He rushes down the stairs, grabs a golf club from the hallway and confronts VALE on the drive. VALE tries to run away but TILL strikes him a severe blow to the head with the golf club. The severity of the blow renders VALE unconscious and fractures his skull. DOES till have a defence, by virtue of Section 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967, in these circumstances?
No, as the force used by TILL was excessive under the circumstances
Section 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 only permits reasonable force. Section 76(6) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states that force will not be considered reasonable if it is disproportionate. The fact that VALE was trying to run away and was unarmed means that striking him on the head with a golf club is disproportionate. If he had been armed with a weapon and posing a threat to TILL himself, then this level of force may have been reasonable.
SHARPLES is talking in the street with a member of the local mosque. Later that day, GARLAND attacks SHARPLES in the street and causes him several injuries. GARLAND attacked him partly because they argued earlier this year and partly because he is hostile to Muslims. SHARPIES is in fact a Hindu. Has GARLAND committed the offence of racially or religiously aggravated assault, contrary to Section 29 Crime and Disorder Act 1988?
Yes, because GARLAND’S attack was motivated wholly or partly by SHARPLES presumed membership of a racial or religious group
WALKER discovers that SINGH has been having an affair with his wife and decides to confront SINGH. WALKER is very angry and walks to SINGH’S home. WALKER shouts, “come out here.” SINGH then opens the door of his home, whereupon WALKER punches SINGH in the face, inflicting a broken nose and other injuries. WALKER stands over SINGH and shouts, “that will teach you.” SINGH reports the assault to police, stating that he believes the assault to be racially motivated. Does WALKER commit the offence of racially or religiously aggravated assault, contrary to Section 29 Crime and Disorder Act 1998?
No, there is no evidence to suggest the assault was motivated by racial hostility
Further reading
CPS Guidance on Racist and Religious Crime
Legislation – Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Legislation - section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/contents
Legislation - Offences Against the Person Act 1861
