Chapter 15 - Non-fatal offences against the person (cases)

Question 1

What case defined assault?

Answer 1

R v Nelson (2013)

Question 2

Which case established that words can amount to assault?

Answer 2

R v Constanza (1997)

Question 3

What were the facts of R v Constanza?

Answer 3

The D wrote 800 letters and made a number of phone calls to the V and the V interpreted the last 2 letters as clear threats and the C of A said there was an assault

Question 4

What case established that silence can amount to assault?

Answer 4

R v Ireland (1997)

Question 5

What were the facts in R v Ireland?

Answer 5

The D made a series of telephone calls over 3 months to 3 different women and the court held that this amounted to assault but it depends on the facts of the case

Question 6

What is the case associated with the apprehension of immediate unlawful force?

Answer 6

R v Lamb (1967)

Question 7

What where the facts in R v Lamb?

Answer 7

The D pointed an gun at someone and they both thought there was no bullet in the chamber and therefore this cannot amount to assault because the other person does not fear immediate force

Question 8

Which case is associated with the fact that the force does not need to be immediate but imminent?

Answer 8

Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983)

Question 9

What were the facts in Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station?

Answer 9

D broke looked through V’s bedroom window and V was terrified and thought that D was about to enter the room and the court held that this amounted to assault because the V feared what he might do next and therefore the force didn’t need to be immediate but imminent

Question 10

Which two cases are associated with the idea that words indicating that there will be no violence may prevent an act from being an assault?

Answer 10

(1) Tuberville v Savage (1669)

2) R v Light (1857

Question 11

What were the facts in Tuberville v Savage?

Answer 11

The D placed one hand on his sword and said ‘if it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you’ and this was held not to be an assault because it showed he was not going to do anything

Question 12

What were the facts in R v Light?

Answer 12

The D raised a sword above the head of his wife and said ‘were it not for the bloody policeman outside, I would split your head open’ and it was held that this was assault as the words in the circumstances were not enough to negate the fear of force

Question 13

What 2 cases establish that unnecessary force is not acceptable?

Answer 13

(1) Collins v Wilcock (1984)

2) Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008

Question 14

What were the facts in Collins v Wilcock?

Answer 14

When a prostitute refused to get into a police car the officer grabbed her arm preventing her from leaving, and in retaliation she scratched his arm and it was held that the officer had committed battery and therefore the D was entitled to free herself

Question 15

What were the facts in Wood (Fraser) v DPP?

Answer 15

A police officer grabbed the arm of a man who fitted the description of the actual D and they struggled and it was held that there had been a technical assault by the police officer as he was not arresting Wood and therefore he was entitled to struggle

Question 16

What case is associated with the idea that touching the victim’s clothing is sufficient for battery?

Answer 16

R v Thomas (1985)

Question 17

What were the facts in R v Thomas?

Answer 17

The D touched the bottom of a woman’s skirt and rubbed it and the C of A held that touching an individuals clothes while they are wearing them is equivalent to touching the individual

Question 18

What case is associated with a continuing act being sufficient for battery?

Answer 18

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968)

Question 19

What were the facts in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner?

Answer 19

The D parked his car on a police officer’s foot which he was unaware of and when asked to move he refused and therefore he had now formed the mens rea of battery

Question 20

What 3 cases are associated with an indirect act being sufficient for a battery?

Answer 20

(1) R v Martin (1881)
(2) DPP v K (1990)
(3) Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire (2000)

Question 21

What were the facts in R v Martin?

Answer 21

The D placed an iron bar across the doorway of a theatre and he then switched off the lights and in a panic the audience were injured when they were trapped and unable to open the door

Question 22

What were the facts in DPP v K?

Answer 22

A schoolboy took sulphuric acid without permission and placed it in a hot-air hand drier to hide it intending to move it later, but before he could another pupil used the drier and was sprayed with acid which caused ABH

Question 23

What were the facts in Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire?

Answer 23

The D caused a small child to fall to the floor by punching the woman holding it and the D was found guilty because he was reckless (transferred malice)

Question 24

What is the case associated with whether omissions are sufficient for a charge of battery?

Answer 24

DPP v Santa-Bermudez (2003)

Question 25

What were the facts in DPP v Santa-Bermudez?

Answer 25

Before searching D’s pockets he was asked if he had anything sharp on him and he said no so when the policewoman was injured by a needle in his pocket which caused bleeding this amounted to ABH

Question 26

What is the case associated with the physical chastisement of a child?

Answer 26

A v UK (1998)

Question 27

What were the facts in A v UK?

Answer 27

A father who had beaten his son with a garden cane was acquitted as physical chastisement of a child used to be lawful, however it is now unlawful under the Children Act 2004

Question 28

What case defined actual bodily harm?

Answer 28

Miller (1954)

Question 29

What case held that loss of consciousness was sufficient for ABH?

Answer 29

T v DPP (2003)

Question 30

What were the facts in T v DPP?

Answer 30

D and a group of youths chased V and he fell and was kicked and he momentarily lost consciousness and D was convicted off assault occasioning ABH

Question 31

Which case held that cutting hair can amount to ABH?

Answer 31

DPP v Smith (Michael) (2006)

Question 32

What were the facts in DPP v Smith (Michael)?

Answer 32

The D had an argument with his girlfriend and cut off her ponytail without her consent and the Divisional Court held that cutting off a substantial amount of hair could amount to ABH

Question 33

In what case what is held that psychiatric harm can be sufficient for ABH?

Answer 33

R v Chan Fook (1994)

Question 34

What was held in R v Chan Fook?

Answer 34

ABH does not include ‘mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic’ nor does it include ‘states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition’

Question 35

What case illustrates that the D need not intend or be reckless as to whether ABH is caused?

Answer 35

R v Roberts (1971)

Question 36

What were the facts in R v Roberts?

Answer 36

D was driving and made advanced to the girl in the passenger seat and she feared he would commit a serious assault and so she jumped from the car travelling at 30mph, he intended to apply unlawful force when he touched her and therefore this satisfied the mens rea for a common assault

Question 37

The decision in R v Roberts was confirmed in 2 cases, what were these 2 cases?

Answer 37

(1) R v Savage (1991)

2) R v Parmenter (1991

Question 38

What were the facts in the case of R v Savage?

Answer 38

D threw threw beer and the glass slipped and V’s hand was cut by the glass, the D intended to throw the beer over the woman but not injure V but the intention to apply unlawful force in the first place was sufficient for the mens rea of a s 47 offence

Question 39

What case is associated with whether internal bleeding counts as a wound?

Answer 39

JJC v Eisenhower (1983)

Question 40

What were the facts in the case of JJC v Eisenhower?

Answer 40

The V was hit in the eye by a shotgun pellet and this did not penetrate the eye but did cause severe bleeding under the surface of the skin and this was held not to be a wound

Question 41

Which case is associated with the fact that a broken bone does not amount to a wound?

Answer 41

R v Wood (1830)

Question 42

What were the facts in the case of R v Wood?

Answer 42

The V’s collar bone was broken but the skin was still intact s and therefore this was held not to be a wound

Question 43

Which case defined GBH as ‘really serious harm’?

Answer 43

DPP v Smith (1961)

Question 44

Which case held that it was permissible to direct a jury that there need be ‘serious harm’ not including the word ‘really’?

Answer 44

Saunders (1985)

Question 45

Which case held that the severity of the injuries should be assessed according to the victim’s age and health?

Answer 45

R v Bollom (2004)

Question 46

What were the facts in the case of R v Bollom?

Answer 46

A 17 month child had bruising on her abdomen, both arms and left leg the C of A quashed D’s conviction of GBH for ABH but said that bruising could amount to GBH

Question 47

What case was the first conviction for causing GBH through infecting victims with diseases?

Answer 47

R v Dica (2004)

Question 48

What were the facts in the case of R v Dica?

Answer 48

The D had unprotected sex with 2 women without telling them he was HIV positive and both women became infected and the D was convicted of inflicting GBH

Question 49

What 2 cases are associated with the word ‘inflict’ in terms of inflicting GBH?

Answer 49

(1) R v Lewis (1974)

2) R v Burstow (1997

Question 50

What were the facts in the case of R v Lewis?

Answer 50

D shouted threats at his wife through a closed door in a second-floor flat and tried to break through the door and the wife was so frightened that she jumped from the window and broke both her legs and D was convicted of a s 20 because threats could be considered a technical assault

Question 51

What were the facts in the case of R v Burstow?

Answer 51

D carried out an 8 month campaign of harassment against a women he had a relationship with 3 years earlier and this harassment consisted of both silent and abusive phone calls, hate mail and stalking and V suffered severe depression as a result and therefore he was convicted of a s 20 offence

Question 52

What case held that the D did not need to foresee serious injury?

Answer 52

R v Parmenter (1991)

Question 53

What were the facts in the case of R v Parmenter?

Answer 53

D injured his 3 month old baby when he threw the child in the air and caught him and he had done this before with older children and did not realise there was a risk of injury, he conviction for a s 20 was substituted for a s 47 offence as he did not foresee any injury

Question 54

Which case illustrates that an intention to wound is not enough for the mens rea of a s 18 offence?

Answer 54

R v Taylor (2009)

Question 55

What were the facts in the case of R v Taylor?

Answer 55

V was found with scratches and stab wounds but from photos it was impossible to tell the depths of the wounds and therefore was unable to show whether D had intended to cause serious injury, his conviction was quashed because the judge misdirected the jury and an intention to wound was not sufficient for the mens rea of s 18 and this was substituted for a s 20 offence

Question 56

What are the 3 leading cases on murder and intention?

Answer 56

(1) Moloney (1985)
(2) Nedrick (1986)
(3) Woollin (1998)

Question 57

What case is associated with the resistance of arrest?

Answer 57

R v Morrison (1989)

Question 58

What were the facts in the case of R v Morrison?

Answer 58

A police officer seized hold of D and told him she was arresting him and he dived through a window, dragging her with him and as a result her face was badly cut by glass and it was held that the prosecution must prove that the D either intended injury or realised there was a risk of injury and took that risk