Section B- Non Fatal Offences (assault,battery,ABH,GBH,wounding) Flashcards
Act and section of assault
S39 criminal justices act where the punishment is recognised
Act and section of battery
Recognised under s39 CJA
Act and section of ABH
S47 offences against the person act 1861
Act and section of wounding and GBH
S.20 Offences against the Person act 1861
Act and section of wounding and GBH with intent
S.18 GBH OAPA 1861
What is the maximum sentence for battery/assault
Up to 6 months
What is the actus Reus for assault
Causing the V to apprehend the infliction of immediate and unlawful force
What is the men’s rea for assault
Intention or recklessness as the assualt
How can assualt be committed (actus reus) and case
Can be committed in words or writing
Constanza
Silence if the V apprehends immediate unlawful force
Ireland
Words indicating there will be no violence the words can be negated
Tuberville v savage
What happens in the case of constanza (assault)
Hundreds of letters sent threatening D
Charged with assault- apprehended immediate or unlawful force
Case of Ireland (assualt)
Breathing down phone after ringing multiple times
Charged with assault as V believed immediate or unlawful force
Case of tuberville v savage
D placed hand on sword and said if it were not assize time I would not take such language from you.
Held: did not amount to an assault as the words indicated that no violence would occur
Defenition of recklessness
Was there a risk of the V fearing that immediate unlawful force would be used against that. D had to realise there was a risk. If don’t realise this- have no MR for risk
What are the cases for MR of assault
The MR of th offence is intention (mohan) or recklessness (Cunningham) as to the assault
Case of mohan (assault-MR)
Pc signaled to stop car
D accelerated towards PC
MR fulfilled when Ds main aim was to bring a desired result
Case of Cunningham
D ripped gas meter off wall and stole money inside
Held: was recklessness as to whether such harm should occur to not where a crime is one of basic intent.- could see a risk
What is the AR of battery
Application of unlawful force to another person
What is the MR of battery
Intention or recklessness as to the battery
What is it called when assault and battery occur at the same time
Common assault
The case of Thomas (battery) (AR)
COA held that touching and rubbing a woman’s skirt is equivalent to touching the person wearing the clothing and could be amount to battery
Case of DPP v K (battery- AR)
Put acid into hand drier and a person suffered burns
Held: convicted of ABH- common assault could be committed by an indirect act
Case of Collins v Wilcock (battery-AR)
Police woman grabbed woman’s arm and she scratched police and was charged with assaulting a PC. Held: police actions amounted to a battery and the DS action was therefore self defence.
MR cases for battery
Mohan, Cunningham
AR of ABH
Assault or battery occasioning ABH
MR of ABH
Intention or recklessness as to the assualt/battery
What was ABH defined in miller as
Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the D
Examples of ABH
Punch- broken nose
Threats-depression
Push- sprained wrist
Case of T v DPP (ABH-AR)
D kicked V who momentarily lost consciousness
Held- D convicted- loss of consciousness can be ABH
Case of DPP v smith (ABH-AR)
Had argument with GF and cut her ponytail
Held: decided that cutting off substantial amount of hair could be amount to ABH
Case of chan fook (AR- ABH)
Dragged V upstairs and locked in room and V felt abused, ashamed, humiliated
Held: ABH includes psychiatric injury but does not include emotions like fear or panic and must show expert evidence
Additional MR of ABH and cases
D need not to foresee the ultimate injury/level if injury (savage, Robert’s)
Case of savage (MR- ABH)
Intended to throw beer over V when the glass slipped and cut V
Held: D only has to intend the assault/battery. They do not need to intend the injury.
Case of Robert’s (ABH-MR)
Driving and made advances to the girl she was scared and jumped from the car
Held: D convicted of ABH as they only needed to intend original assault/battery
AR of GBH (s.20)
To inflict GBH
MR of GBH (S.20)
Intention to recklessness as to SOME harm
AR of wounding (s.20)
To wound
MR of wounding (s.20)
Intention or recklessness as to some harm
What did DPP v smith define GBH as
‘Really serious harm’ and clarified it did not need to be life threatening
What will the severity of the injuries be based on and case
Will be assessed according to the victims age and health. Bruising a baby is more severe than bruising an adult- bollam
What does the term ‘bodily’ include in GBH and cases
Include an injury that is physical, psychiatric (Burstow) or a deliberate infection of a serious disease (dica)
The case of r v burstow (GBH-AR)
8 month campaign of harassment against his ex girlfriend, as a result she suffered from severe depression
The HOL upheld the conviction showing that inflict means the same as cause
The case of dica (GBH- AR)
D had unprotected sex with 2 women without telling them he was HIV positive and both women were infected.
Held that infecting someone with HIV was inflicting GBH
What does wounding require (s.20) and case
Requires both layers of the skin to be broken (r v wood). Superficial cuts or scratches will not be classed as a wound. A cut of internal skin such as cheek may be sufficient although internal bleeding is not enough. A bruise, broken bone or internal injury wont work unless the skin is broken. Eisenhower
Case of Eisenhower (wounding- AR)
V was shot in eye with shotgun pellet which didn’t penetrate the eye but caused internal bleeding.
Held: offence of wounding was not committed as both layers of skin were not broken.
Additional men’s Rea for s.20 GBH and wounding and case
Intent or recklessness as to causing some harm
D does not need to have the men’s Rea for the level of harm committed. He des not need to intend/forsee the risk of the wound or GBH, he only needs to forsee some harm.
Parmenter
Case of parmenter (GBH and wounding MR)
D caused GBH to his baby and was convicted of GBH. He was not used to handling babies and did not know actions would result in injury so he appealed.
Held: Ds conviction was changed to ABH, D must appreciate there was risk of some harm and take that risk
AR of s.18 GBH
To cause GBH
MR of s.18 GBH
Intention to cause GBH
AR for s.18 wounding
To wound
MR for s.18 wounding
Intention to cause GBH
AR of s.18 and cases
Either
To wound- Eisenhower
To cause GBH- DPP v smith
Can also fulfil AR of s18 by causing any of the above whilst resisting arrest
Men’s Rea of s.18 (GBH and wounding) and case
Intention to do some grievous bodily harm
An intention to wound will not suffice
Taylor
Case of Taylor (s.18 MR)
When D stabbed v he was charged with wounding as he had the MR to wound
Held- MR to wound is not sufficient enough for s.18 GBH, it must be intention to cause GBH.
Reforms
- draft bill in 1998
The LC has criticised this area of law being a ‘ragbag’ of offences. The created a draft bill which seems more logical and clearer than the OAPA 1861. Changes included- old fashioned language like ‘grievous’ has been removed or replaced. Correspondence Liability is favoured which is fairer on the D
-OAP- modernising law on violence 2015- replaced by modern legislation
