Section 47 ABH Flashcards
What is the level of harm defined under Section 47 for Actual Bodily Harm?
Bruises, swelling, scratches, haircut, mild concussion, chest pain, momentary loss of consciousness, psychiatric harm more than fear or distress.
What does D potentially commit under Section 47 of The Offences Against the Person Act 1861?
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
What is the ACTUS REUS for assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
An assault or battery causing actual bodily harm.
How is Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) defined in MILLER?
‘Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim.’
What types of injuries can constitute ABH?
Bruises, scratches, swelling, mild concussion, momentary loss of consciousness, chest pain, cutting of hair, psychiatric harm with a recognized medical condition more than fear or distress.
Which case defines psychiatric harm in relation to ABH?
CHAN-FOOK, BURSTOW, IRELAND.
Which case addresses momentary loss of consciousness as ABH?
T v DPP.
Which case addresses cutting of hair as ABH?
SMITH.
What is the men’s rea for ABH?
The Men’s Rea is the intention or recklessness as to an assault or battery not the ABH itself,(SAVAGE ROBERTS)
What constitutes assault under common law?
D committed ASSAULT under common law, charged under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (NELSON) by causing V the apprehension of immediate unlawful force when he threatened V causing him fear.
Examples include: act/gesture or words (Logdon), words can negate (Tuberville, Light), must be fear of immediate unlawful force (Lamb), can be indirect (Dume).
What constitutes battery under common law?
D committed BATTERY under common law, charged under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (ROLFE) by the application of unlawful force when he pushed V which is more than everyday contact.
Examples include: need not be hostile/without consent, no injury (Thomas), more than everyday contact (Collins v Wilcock), can be direct or indirect and even just clothing (DPP v K, Thomas).
What is factual causation in the context of injury?
Factual causation is satisfied as ‘but for’ D’s actions, V would not have been injured.
Relevant cases: PAGETT, WHITE, HUGHES.
What is the legal cause of injury?
D hitting V was probably the legal cause of the injury as it was the operating and substantial cause, being the significant, more than minimal cause.
Relevant cases: Smith, Pagett.
What is a novus actus interveniens?
A novus actus interveniens (intervening act) can break the chain of causation if it was not reasonably foreseeable.
Relevant cases: Corbett, Roberts, Kennedy.
How does a victim’s own act affect causation?
If V jumped into the road which was unforeseeable, it will break the chain OR V’s response to D’s actions was foreseeable, and will not break the chain.
How does a third party act affect causation?
X’s actions were unforeseeable, and will break the chain OR X’s actions were foreseeable, and will not break the chain.
How does medical negligence affect causation?
Medical negligence is an intervening act that usually will not break the chain of causation unless it is considered very serious (‘palpably wrong’).
Relevant case: Cheshire.
What is the thin skull rule?
If V has a hidden weakness, D is expected to ‘take his victim as he finds them’.
Relevant case: Blaue.
What is direct intention as to an assault?
D has direct intention as to an assault (MOHAN) when threatening to beat V up.
What is direct intention as to battery?
D has direct intention as to battery (MOHAN) when pushing V aggressively in an argument.
What does it mean to be subjectively reckless as to an assault?
D was subjectively reckless as to an assault (CUNNINGHAM/PARMENTER) when she pointed a toy gun at V.
What does it mean to be reckless as to a battery?
D was reckless as to a battery (CUNNINGHAM/PARMENTER) when she threw her drink over her shoulder and it hit V.
What is the transferred malice principle?
The transferred malice principle applies, where a crime intended for one person falls on another by accident, as in (Latimer, Mitchell).
Here, D will still be liable as the mens rea is transferred from X to V.
What is the limitation of the transferred malice principle?
The principle of transferred malice states that only similar crimes can be transferred.
Here, D intended to cause property damage, but actually hurt VI, and so cannot be found guilty (Pembliton).
What is the principle of joint enterprise and transferred malice?
Under the principle of joint enterprise and transferred malice, it does not matter that D was not the one who actually injured V.
All that matters is that D intended to hurt X, X intended to hurt D, and in fighting back with D, injured V (Gnango).
What is the coincidence rule?
Under the coincidence rule, the actus reus and mens rea must coincide at least once, as in Fagan v MPC and Thabo Meli (series of events).
Here, D had the mens rea of murder when he first stabbed V, but when D actually committed the actus reus when burying V alive in the garden, D did not have the mens rea because he thought V was dead. D will still be liable.
What is the conclusion regarding D’s guilt?
To conclude, D is guilty.
