Offences Against the Person

Question 1

OAPA Section 18

Answer 1

Wounding/causing GBH w/ intent.
Life max.
Actus reus;
Wound: Breaking of skin
GBH: Really serious harm including disability, requiring surgery/treatment, broken bones
Mens rea: Intention to cause GBH or resist arrest/resist apprehension of another

Question 2

OAPA Section 20

Answer 2

Malicious wounding/infliction of GBH.
Max 5yrs.
Infliction narrower than causing.
Doing something intentionally that causes force to be applied to V, resulting in GBH.
Psychiatric illness may be 'inflicted'.
STDs may come under S20

Question 3

OAPA Section 47

Answer 3

Assault occasioning ABH
Max 5yrs
Actus reus: An assault
ABH
Causal link between the two.
Assault: Infliction of force.
Causing V to apprehend the infliction of force.
ABH: Hurt or injury calculated to interfere w/ health & comfort.
Foresight of harm unnecessary.

Question 4

OAPA Section 24/23

Answer 4

S24: Unlawfully and maliciously administering any poison or noxious thing.
S23: As above, causing GBH or endangering life.

Question 5

Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39

Answer 5

Assault and battery.
6 months max.
Often charged over s47, easier to convict.

Question 6

R v Emmett 1999

Answer 6

Held- Consent may form a defence in some circumstances, but risk of permanent injury outweighs consent to sado-masochism.

Question 7

Burrell v Harmer 1967

Answer 7

D tattooed D1+2, aged 12/13.
Convicted of assault.
Held on appeal- If D1+2 were unable to appreciate the nature of the act then consent is vitiated.
D rightly convicted, appeal dismissed.

Question 8

R v Boyea 1992

Answer 8

D inserted hand into V’s vagina.
Judge directed consent irrelevant if actions likely/intended to harm.
On appeal- Assault intended or likely to cause harm and is indecent is an offence irrespective of consent, provided the injury is not ‘transient or trifling.’

Question 9

Faulkner v Talbot 1981

Answer 9

V, 14, left home and lived w/ D.
Shared bed after horror film.
D invited V to have sex.
V resisted, D pulled him on top and inserted penis into vagina.
D convicted of indecent assault.
Crown Court: No explicit offence prohibiting intercourse w/ boy under 16.
Touching a prelude, not indecent assault in and of itself.
Appeal dismissed.
Further: D intentionally touched V.
Touching was, by nature, indecent.
V could not give consent (Age).
Indecent assault made out.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 10

R v St George (1840)

Answer 10

D and V had altercation.
D pulled out a pistol.
Attempted to fire on V.
V held muzzle of gun, prevented firing.
D convicted of assault.

Question 11

Tuberville v Savage (1669)

Answer 11

D put hand upon sword, stating ‘If it were not assizes time, I would not take such language from you.’
Held: Not an assault.
Declared that he would not strike V.
No reason to apprehend violence.

Question 12

Savage and Parmenter 1991

Answer 12

Parmenter: Handled child roughly causing serious injury.
Savage: D threw drink over V, an ex-gf of her husband.
Let go of glass, injuring V upon breaking.
D claimed breakage was unintentional.
Held: Substituting S47 for Parmenter, dismissing Savage, that it is enough that SOME harm is foreseen, not necessarily the harm suffered.
Savage’s action ‘malicious.’

Question 13

Attorney General’s References 25, 26 & 27 of 1995

Answer 13

Defendants ran a fairground.
One struck on head w/ baseball bat during altercation.
Defendants armed themselves, attacked group of black youths.
Unrelated to original attack.
One victim suffered fractured skull and severe brain damage.
Defendants sentenced, AG asked for review.
Held: That the defendants were armed, racial element and severity of injury, sentences lenient.
All increased.

Question 14

Ireland & Burstow 1997

Answer 14

Ireland: D made a number of silent calls to three women.
Convicted of S47 OAPA 1861.
Burstow: Harassed woman he’d had social relationship with.
V stated to have severe depressive illness.
D convicted of inflicting GBH w/ intent (S20).
Held: Dismissing both appeals, that contemporary knowledge of psychiatric injuries bring them within ‘bodily harm’, even though acts may not be specifically directed at the victim.
Assault may be committed by silence, causing V to fear immediate unlawful violence.

Question 15

R v Aitken 1992

Answer 15

Three defendants and V were RAF officers who had completed training.
Setting fire to fire resistant suits.
V decided to leave, defendants set fire to him.
Defendants convicted of GBH.
On appeal: Section 20 does not require specific intent, objective judgement of risk, drunkenness does not vitiate.
D1-3 did not intend to harm.
V had taken part in earlier horseplay, consent was implied.
Judge did not direct jury, affecting their judgement of unlawfulness.
Verdicts unsafe, convictions quashed.

Question 16

R v Nichol 1807

Answer 16

D sexually abused a student while covering classes at a school his wife ran.
Held that, though she consented, it was borne out of fear/intimidation of his age and position of authority.
Fear amounted to simple assault.
Likely charged under sexual assault act now.

Question 17

R v Venna 1976

Answer 17

D part of group creating disturbance in early hours.
Police instructed them to go home, group refused.
Officer grabbed D, who resisted, lashing out.
Fractured officer’s hand.
Convicted of assault occasioning ABH.
Appeal: D had no intent.
Held: Fine line between recklessness and intent.
Conviction safe, appeal dismissed.

Question 18

Smith v Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station 1983

Answer 18

D entered grounds of private house.
Looked through window at elderly lady.
V saw him staring for a few seconds before jumping towards the window, screaming.
Convicted contrary to Vagrancy Act, purpose to assault V.
D caused her to fear immediate, unlawful violence.
Specific fear not required.

Question 19

T v DPP 2003

Answer 19

After an earlier attack, D was part of a group that chased V.
V fell, D kicked him in the head.
D was awoken by a police officer.
Certified question: Is temporary loss of consciousness sufficient for ABH?
Focus on language. Transient is, by nature, temporary.
Held: Plainly within ABH.
Excludes triviality, which unconsciousness is not.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 20

R v Waltham 1849

Answer 20

D kicked V in the privates.
Urethra lining ruptured, pissed blood.
Held to be sufficient for a wound within S20.
Urethra a cavity continuous with outside of the skin, same tissue as inside of cheek.

Question 21

C v Eisenhower 1984

Answer 21

D fired a pellet gun at a group, hitting V in the left eye.
Eye shown to have blood in the fluid.
D charged W/ wounding w/ intent.
Supervision order made fine given.
D appealed; Was D guilty of wounding?
Held: No. Numerous instances distinguished.
Conviction quashed.

Question 22

R v Martin 1881

Answer 22

D closed and bolted theatre doors.
Crush ensued, two seriously injured (Fractured skull).
Held: D intended to cause alarm.
Intended to block the exit.
‘Prisoner must be taken to have intended the natural consequences of that which he did.’
No personal malice, but committed an unlawful act calculated to injure.
Conviction correct.

Question 23

DPP v Santa Bermudez 2003

Answer 23

Officer declared intent to search.
Asked D to turn out pockets, asked about sharps.
Upon search V’s middle finger pricked by needle, D smirked.
D tested positive for HIV & Hep C.
V not infected.
Held: D created danger and exposed V to risk of harm.
DPP v K, acid in hand dryer.