Scenario 2 - Non-Fatal Offences Flashcards
Collins v Wilcock
battery is ‘the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person’
this may be the merest touch
Brown
battery requires a physical result, although the violence need not be hostile
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire
direct contact is not required for battery
DPP v K
battery may be the result of an indirect act
Maloney
intention should be left to the good sense of the jury
Chandler
jury will make their decision based upon an objective view of the facts
Woollin
sometimes it may be necessary to provide the jury with more direction, and when this is so, the jury may find intention when D has subjectively appreciated that the outcome is a virtual certainty
Venna
confirmed recklessness is sufficient for battery
R v G
recklessness requires that D has a subjective appreciation of the risk they are taking and have taken it anyway
White
but for test
Cato
legally substantial is more than de minimis
Kimsey
de minimis is more than slight or trifling
Marchant and Muntz
legally culpable means blameworthy or incurring liability
Miller
ABH is ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim’
T v DPP
ABH must be more than merely transient and trifling
DPP v Smith - ABH
ABH does not need to cause physical pain or be permanent
Savage v Parmenter
the additional level of harm required for s.47 and s.20 does not have to be intended or foreseen
Wood
a wounding must be a break of the skin
Moriarty v Brooks
a wound is a cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin, both the dermis and epidermis
Morris
a scratch will not suffice as a wound
JCC v Eisenhower
a rupturing of blood vessels under the skin does not suffice as a wound
DPP v Smith - GBH
GBH is no more and no less than ‘really serious harm’
Saunders
GBH does not have to be life threatening and ‘serious harm’ was also accepted
Birmingham
a jury can find GBH by looking at the totality of the injuries inflicted
Bollom
the injury may be viewed as more or less serious depending on the victim
Cunningham
‘maliciousness’ was equated to recklessness
Mowatt
the additional level of harm required for s.20 does not have to be intended or foreseen, confirmed in Savage v Parmenter
Taylor
for s.18, intention towards lesser harm isn’t sufficient, only intention for GBH
