Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Non Fatal Offences
- Assault
- Charged under s.39
of the Criminal
Justice act 1988
- Common law assault and
battery shall be summary
offences and a person guilty of
either shall be liable to a fine or
a max prison term of 6 months
- Actus Reus
- An assault is an act which
causes another person to
apprehend the infliction of
immediate, unlawful force on
his person (Collins v Wilcock)
- there must be an act to
cause the apprehension
- Immediate can also mean
looking through a window
(Smith v Woking Police)
- Genuine
apprehension of
force is required
(Lamb)
- An ommission will not suffice
(Fagan v Metropolitan Police
Commisioner)
- Revealing a gun will constitute assault (Lodgon v DPP)
- Threatenting letters can be an assault (Constanza)
- Silent phone calls can also be an assault (Ireland)
- Empty threat will not constitute an assault (Tuberville v Savage)
- The act must be unlawful i.e. no consent (Slingsby)
- Mens Rea
- Intention or recklessness as to
causing the victim to apprehend
the immediate infliction of
unlawful personal force (Venna)
- Recklessness is subjective
- Intoxicated Behavior will constitute
recklessness (Majewski)
- Battery
- Also charged under s.39 of
Criminal Justice act 1988
- Actus Reus
- A battery is the actual
infliction of of unlawful force
an another person (Collins v
Wilcock)
- Touching of another person
however slight may amount to
battery
- Touching a victims skirt
was equivalent to touching
victim in (Thomas)
- Touching must be hostile
(Wilson v Pringle)
- If the touching was unlawful, it is
more likely to be hostile (Brown)
- Defendant does not have to touch the
victim (R v Martin) Shouting fire in
crowded theather
- Indirect battery is treated as if
the defendant performed a
direct battery (DPP v K)
- Hitting an adult that drops a child is
equivelant to indirect battery
(Haystead v CC of derbyshire
- Can be committed
by an ommission
- if the defendant creates a
dangerous situation by omitting to
say or do anything, he will be liable
for the harm that results (miller)
- if someone creates a
danger and thus exposes
another to a reasonably
forseeable risk of injury
which occurs there is an
evidential basis for actus reu
- DPP v Santana-Bermudez
- Victim can consent to
assault and battery (Brown)
- Victim must consent to both nature
and quality of the act (Tabassum)
- Consent is implied for the
ordinary jostlings of everyday
life (Collins v Wilcock and
Wilson v Pringle)
- Police can use reasonable
force to arrest a defendant
(Wood (Fraser) v DPP)
- Mens rea
- Intention or recklessness
as to the infliction of
unlawful force (Venna)
- Actual Bodily Harm
- When an assault or battery
causes an injury, the defendant
will be charged with actual bodily
harm
- Charged under s.47 of the offences
against the person act (1861)
- Actus Reus
- Must cause any hurt or injury
designed to interfere with the health
or comfort of the victim (Miller 1954)
- Bruising, Scratching,
Grazing, Fractures,
Concussion
- Psychiatric injury will also suffice (Chan Fook)
- Bodily injury may include any part
of the body responsible for mental
and other faculties
- Will require a
recognised
psychiatric illness
(Burstow)
- Years of
Domestic abuse
will not suffice
(Dhaliwal)
- Mens rea
- If defendant performs the actus
reus and mens rea of battery and
it leads to injury, he will have all
element for ABH (Roberts)
- Victim can consent if it falls under
special exceptions of attorney
generals reference no 6 (1980)
- Properly conducted
games or sports, lawful
chastisement or
correction, reaosnable
surgical interference and
other dangerous
exhibitions
- Conduct beyond
what is accepted
may be criminal i.e.
a particularly grave
injury (Barnes (2005)
- Mistaken belief in
consent may be a
defence (Jones)
- Triable either way
with max terms of 5
years
- Malicous Wounding
- Charged Under s.20 of OAPA 1861
- Triable either way with max
term being 5 years
- Actus Reus
- Unlawful
- Wound
- Must break
through all the
layers of the skin
and cannot
include internal
bleeding (JCC v
Eisenhower)
- Broken bone will not
constitute a wound unless
skin is broken (Wood)
- Inflict Grevious
bodily harm
- Inflict does not require
an assault (Beasley)
(Burstow)
- Inflict simply means cause
- GBH simply means really serious
harm but does not have to be life
threatening (DPP v Smith)
- Jury can be directed as to
serious Harm (Saunders)
- Age, Heath and other factors can be
considered when determining whether
injuries amount to GBH (Bollom)
- Biological GBH now
exists as a result of
Dica
- Severe depressive
illness can now be
GBH (Burstow)
- Mens Rea
- 'Malicously' (s.20 OAPA 1861)
- Intentionally
- (Cunningham)
- Recklessly
- Cunningham
- Does not have to forsee
that it will be grevious
(Mowatt) (Parmenter)
- It is enough that D
foresaw some physical
harm to some person,
albeit of a minor
charecter, might result
(Mowatt)
- Grevious Bodily
Harm With Intent
- Charged under s.18 of OAPA 1861
- Max sentence is life
imprisonment
- indictable to crown court for trial
- Actus Reus
- Unlawful
- Wound
- Cause grevious bodily harm
- Mens Rea
- There must be a specific Intent
- Therefore, the word malicously
can be disregarded (Mowatt)
- GBH must be a virtual certainty and
the defendant must realise that this
is the case (Nedrick) (Woolin)
- Racially Motivated Assault
- Under s.29 of crime & disorder act 1998, term
of imprisonment will be incresd to represent the
hostility towards a particular racial or religous
group
- Administering Poison