S47 Actual Bodily Harm Flashcards
- D may have committed assault occasioning actual bodily harm under…
D may have committed Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm under Section 47 of The Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
- The Actus Reus is…
Here…
The ACTUS REUS is an Assault or Battery causing Actual Bodily Harm.
Here V’s injuries constitute ABH defined in MILLER as:
‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim’
as he suffered [eg. bruises, scratches, swelling, mild concussion, momentary loss of consciousness (T v DPP), chest pain, cutting of hair (SMITH), psychiatric harm with a recognised medical condition more than fear or distress (CHAN-FOOK, BURSTOW, IRELAND).
EITHER: D committed Assault under common law…
a. Acts, Gestures or Words…
OR: D committed BATTERY under common law
b. need not be hostile/without consent…
EITHER : D committed ASSAULT under common law, and charged under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (NELSON, LOGDON, LAMB) by causing V the apprehension (fear) of the infliction of immediate unlawful force when he [eg. threatened V causing him fear].
USE AS RELEVANT: Act/Gesture or Words, words can negate, must be fear of immediate unlawful force, can be indirect.
OR:
D committed BATTERY under common law, and charged under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (ROLFE, THOMAS, COLLINS v WILLCOCK) by the application of unlawful force on V when he [eg. pushed V which is more than everyday contact].
USE AS RELEVANT: need not be hostile/without consent, no injury, more than everyday contact, can be direct or indirect and even just clothing.
- Factual Causation is satisfied as “but for” D’s Assault/Battery
a. For Legal Causation D’s Battery/Assault was the operating and substantial cause of V’s injuries…
Factual Causation is satisfied as “but for” D’s assault [or battery] V would not have been injured (PAGETT, WHITE).
For Legal Causation, D’s assault [or battery] was the operating and substantial cause of V’s injuries as it was a significant, more than minimal contribution (SMITH). V [eg. falling over and suffering bruising] is an intervening act (Novus Actus Interveniens) but will not break the chain of causation as it was reasonably foreseeable
IF RELEVANT: Use PAGETT: “act of a third party/contribution of others” or ROBERTS: “victim’s own act”) and Legal Causation is satisfied.
[APPLY TO LEGAL CAUSATION ONLY IF RELEVANT]:
- Medical negligence as a novus actus interveniens/intervening act does not break the chain of causation (CHESHIRE) unless it is “palpably wrong” (JORDAN). Here…………..
- The thin skull rule means to take your victim as you find them where the victim has a hidden weakness and so there will be legal causation (BLAUE). Here………………].
The Mens is…
Transferred Malice…
The MENS REA is intention or subjective recklessness AS TO AN ASSAULT OR A BATTERY NOT AS TO THE ABH ITSELF, as in SAVAGE, and in ROBERTS.
Here D [ CHOOSE ONE of 4: EITHER:
D has Specific/Direct intention as to an Assault as D decided to bring about the particular consequence of fear (MOHAN) when [eg. threatening to beat V up].
OR
Specific/Direct intention as to Battery as D decided to bring about the particular consequence of unlawful force (MOHAN) when [eg. pushing V aggressively in an argument].
OR:-
D was Subjectively Reckless as to an Assault as D foresaw a risk of causing fear(apprehension) and carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when [ eg. she pointed a toy gun at V]
OR
D was Subjectively Reckless as to a Battery as D foresaw a risk of the application of unlawful force and carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when [ eg. she threw her drink over her shoulder and it hit V].
IF RELEVANT: “The transferred malice principle applies, where a crime intended for one person falls on another by accident, as in Latimer, so D will still be liable as the mens rea for the [assault OR battery] is transferred from X to V.”
TO CONCLUDE, D is likely to be liable as the AR and MR are satisfied.
