WS 2 Flashcards
R v Ireland [1997]
Assault can be done through just words, or even silent telephone calls, as long as there is the anticipation of immediate danger.
DPP v K
- 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
R v Miller [1954]
- Ruled that actual bodily harm is any hurt or injury interfering with V’s health or comfort
R v Chan-Fook [1994]
- Confirmed that Actual Bodily Harm can include psychiatric injury, but needs to be a recognisable clinical condition
R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1991]
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
JJC v Eisenhower [1984]
- 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
DPP v Smith [1961]
- Defined GBH as really serious harm
R v Brown and Stratton [1997]
- Found that a number of lesser injuries could amount to ‘really serious harm’ and therefore, GBH
R v Tabassum [2000]
- 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
R v Konzani [2005]
- 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
R v Barnes [2005]
- 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.
R v Brown [1993]
- 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’
R v Williams [1984]
- 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
R v O’Grady [1987]
A mistake arising from voluntary intoxication could not be relied on in a defence - reasonable force
R v Secretary of State for Justice [2016]
- 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
Wilson v Pringle [1987]
Implied consent: Court held that the ordinary jostling of everyday life is not battery
.
.
R v Olugboja [1982]
- V submitted to D raping her as she had already been raped and seen her friend been raped
- Submission through fear is not consent.
R v Wilson [1996]
- 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
R v Jones [1987]
- 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
R v Burstow [1997]
- 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
A-G’s Reference (No 6 of 1980)
- Cannot consent to the infliction of ABH or worse
R v Clegg [1995]
- The force used in self-defence must be objectively reasonable
R v Martin [2002]
- 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
R v BM [2018]
- 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
