Sem2 - Non-Lethal offences against the person:GBH

Question 1

Assault

• What’s the actus reus of assault?

Answer 1

Actus reus: when the vic apprehends immediate&unlawful personal violence

• Stephens v Myers 1830: “an act which causes vic to apprehend “ “
• it’s a THREAT, not the actual infliction of violence —> just making someone fear that violence is coming

Question 2

Assault:Actus Reus — what do they mean by “unlawful” infliction of pers violence? What’s Lawful personal violence?

Answer 2

• a lawful assault (remember assault is not the actual INFLICTION of violence) is one that someone consented to. Ie, u can consent to someone scaring you

Question 3

Assault: what’s the Mens Rea of assault?

Answer 3

• intentional recklessness as to the D’s actions CAUSING the vic to fear that personal violence was incoming

Question 4

Battery: What’s the Actus Reus is Battery?

Answer 4

• the intentional touching(?) w/out consent or lawful excuse
  
  • definition from Faulker case
    Battery official def = “an act or omission which inflicts unlawful personal violence on vic
  • Later case law decides that battery doesn’t have to be physical body-to-body contact, but can be via a medium (ie, a weapon) or thru clothes
    —» ie, the Purcell case (where a woman thru boiling water @ a man’s face), othr case involving acid
• Talbot case and Ironim(?) case are the Actus Reus defns most relied on

Question 5

Battery’s Actus Reus: how have the courts defined “personal violence”?

Answer 5

• doesn’t need to involve body-to-body contact
• must be hostile touching (not the everyday touching bw strangers that ppl implicitly consent to [bumping together on subway]) —» defn from Wilson v Pringle
• can be a slight touch, doesn’t need to cause injury, but it must be outside the course of ordinary conduct —» from Collins v Wilcox

Question 6

Battery: What’s the Mens Rea of battery?

Answer 6

• Intentionally or recklessly applying force to the person of another (frm Vena 1966)
  —» just means you have to intend OR see the risk of THE CONTACT HAPPENING (directly or indirectly), u don’t need to intend injury or even foresee harm itself happening

Question 7

Assault & Battery = Conduct Crimes

Answer 7

Means you do NOT need to prove causation, u don’t need to prove any injury or harm came abt bc of those actions
- u just need to prove those actions happened

Question 8

Actual Bodily Harm — what’s the Actus Reus & Mens Rea?

Answer 8

• either technical assault/battery (or both?) PLUS causing the actual bodily harm
  —» s47 of Offences Against the Person Act 1861
• Actus Reus = there must be an assault/battery which THEN CAUSES the actual bodily harm
  —» so for ABH u WOULD need to prove causation
• Mens Rea = just the Mens Rea for the base offences of assault/battery, there’s no actual mens rea for ABH
  —» problematic bc it’s a much more srs offence, u go frm max 6months penalty for assault/battery to max 5yrs penalty for ABH w/out having any more of a guilty mind; u don’t need ANY foresight of harm, just if u happen to be unlucky Enuf to cause harm, max penalty goes up

Question 9

Great Bodily Harm: Actus Reus and Mens Rea?

Answer 9

• Actus Reus = “an act or omission that causes/inflicts [courts have said they both mean the same thing] grievous bodily harm or wounding to someone”
  —» same for both s18 and s20 GBH
• Mens Rea (for s18, which is the more srs offence) = they need to intend v srs harm of some kind —» it doesn’t need to be the exact srs harm that actually came abt
  —» but s18 can’t be recklessness, has to be intentional
• Mens Rea for s20 = intention OR recklessness as to causing that srs harm

Question 10

Someone can consent to Assault or Battery (thus absolving D of liability). Can someone consent to ABH or GBH?

Answer 10

Yes, kinda.
In Wilson v Brown, vic consented to having name branded on him. Courts allowed it —» in some contexts they do allow consent to ABH/GBH, usually when there’s a public utility function

— ie, someone can be injured srsly during sporting activity, but if they signed on to play (hockey/wrestling/football/boxing), they signed on for some level of that risk as long as in accordance to rules of game

— also tattoos, body piercings body transformation — all that is srs ABH, but if u consent to that then courts allow

— prob w Wilson v Brown = courts said there was public utility function to violence in HET sex activity, but not in gay sex activity 🤬

Question 11

What abt in having slept w someone who has an STD Or HIV? Can u consent to that? (Obvs it would otherwise cause GBH)

Answer 11

You can if u KNOW they had the STD/HIV beforehand (Deaca case 2004)
- “as long as your consent is informed & effective [meaning u have the capacity to consent]”, D can use it as a defence

Question 12

Like w Homicide: u always start a prob question where someone’s been INJURED, w thinking of what the MOST SRS OFFENCE u can charge D with under the facts

Answer 12

• obvs if someone’s died u wouldn’t even think of Offences against Person, U’d go straight to homicide
• if someone’s sustained injury (wounding, losing a limb, etc): start FIRST thinking if u can charge D w s18, before moving on to s20
• When thinking of how srs injury is, always ask if vic could’ve DIED frm that injury. If so, that’s be a v srs harm
• if it’s a comparatively minor injury, always start w ABH before moving on to just Battery

Question 13

How to start ProbQues: Identify the crime/criminal events, then discuss D’s liability for harm suffered by vic

Answer 13

Ie, discuss Derek’s liability for Peter suffering heart attack
- Criminal events: D points a gun & pulls trigger (Assault)
- Gun misfires but Pete suffers heart attack soon afterward (harm, even if not caused by bullet itself. GBH s18)
—» Bollom 2004 case established u need to take vic’s age & health as D finds them. That pointing a gun & shooting @ elderly Pete would cause some form of dmg was foreseeable, & u don’t need to intend the exact form of harm that was caused to still be liable for GBH