WS 2

Question 1

R v Ireland [1997]

Answer 1

Assault can be done through just words, or even silent telephone calls, as long as there is the anticipation of immediate danger.

Question 2

DPP v K

Answer 2

• D placed acid from a science lesson into a hand drier in the toilets
• Another pupil used it, acid squirted in his face causing permanent scars
• For battery, application of force need not be directly applied

Question 3

R v Miller [1954]

Answer 3

• Ruled that actual bodily harm is any hurt or injury interfering with V’s health or comfort

Question 4

R v Chan-Fook [1994]

Answer 4

• Confirmed that Actual Bodily Harm can include psychiatric injury, but needs to be a recognisable clinical condition

Question 5

R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1991]

Answer 5

For s47 of OAPA, mens rea is intention or recklessness as to the assault only
s20 and s18 intention or recklessness as to some harm

Question 6

JJC v Eisenhower [1984]

Answer 6

• D shot V with air gun, causing internal bleeding

- Found not guilty of wounding under s 20 of the OAPA, as did not break both layers of skin

Question 7

DPP v Smith [1961]

Answer 7

• Defined GBH as really serious harm

Question 8

R v Brown and Stratton [1997]

Answer 8

• Found that a number of lesser injuries could amount to ‘really serious harm’ and therefore, GBH

Question 9

R v Tabassum [2000]

Answer 9

• D claimed to be a doctor conducting breast cancer survey

- Ruled that for valid consent, V needs to know the nature and quality of the act

Question 10

R v Konzani [2005]

Answer 10

• D had sex with 3 women without informing them that he had HIV
• Ruled that the consent given was undermined as it was not ‘true and informed’
• D charged with GBH

Question 11

R v Barnes [2005]

Answer 11

• Amateur footballer suffered a broken leg
• D found not guilty as the act - despite being a foul - did not go beyond the conduct of the sport as to reach a criminal threshold.

Question 12

R v Brown [1993]

Answer 12

• Group of sadomasochistic homosexuals found guilty of ABH and GBH for sexual purposes
• HoL found that such activities were not within the public interest or would promote public health
• Defence of consent not available for indulging in violence for sexual purposes
• ‘cult of violence’

Question 13

R v Williams [1984]

Answer 13

• D, who was mistaken of the facts, punched someone who was chasing a robber
• D is judged on the facts as he honestly believed them to be

Question 14

R v O’Grady [1987]

Answer 14

A mistake arising from voluntary intoxication could not be relied on in a defence - reasonable force

Question 15

R v Secretary of State for Justice [2016]

Answer 15

• CPS decided not to prosecute a householder who restrained an intruder causing permanent damage
• Intruder argued that the householder defender was incompatible with Article 2 of the ECHR - right to life
• Denied as still has to be reasonable in the circumstances

Question 16

Wilson v Pringle [1987]

Answer 16

Implied consent: Court held that the ordinary jostling of everyday life is not battery

Question 17

.

Answer 17

.

Question 18

R v Olugboja [1982]

Answer 18

• V submitted to D raping her as she had already been raped and seen her friend been raped
• Submission through fear is not consent.

Question 19

R v Wilson [1996]

Answer 19

• D who branded his initials on his wife’s buttocks at her request
• Found that the wife’s consent was valid
• As was close to tattooing and not in the public interest as in R v Brown

Question 20

R v Jones [1987]

Answer 20

• Appellants were schoolboys who tossed two schoolmates in the air, causing serious injury
• Convictions squashed on basis for a an honest belief in consent
• horseplay

Question 21

R v Burstow [1997]

Answer 21

• D harrassed V, silent phone calls etc.
• V suffered serious depressive illness
• Applying dicta in Chan-Fook, was ruled that this could amount to GBH

Question 22

A-G’s Reference (No 6 of 1980)

Answer 22

• Cannot consent to the infliction of ABH or worse

Question 23

R v Clegg [1995]

Answer 23

• The force used in self-defence must be objectively reasonable

Question 24

R v Martin [2002]

Answer 24

• D, who suffered from paranoid personality disorder argued this should be taken into account in his assessment of ‘reasonable force’
• Court found that psychiatric disorders are not admissible

Question 25

R v BM [2018]

Answer 25

• D charged under s18 of the OAPA after, with the victims consent, removing part of his ear, nipple and forking his tongue
• Court ruled that this was distinct from tattooing due to the level of harm, and no person could consent to such irreversible injuries