Assault Flashcards

Question

R v barnes

Answer 1

You are taken to consent to certain contact or use of force when participating in sports. However, this does not extend to actions that would not reasonably be associated with the sport in question. Lord Woolf emphasised that in most situations, violence in sport will be dealt with through disciplinary procedures rather than the criminal courts. A criminal prosecution should therefore be reserved for those situations where the conduct is sufficiently grave to be properly categorised as criminal.

Answer 2

Section 3 of the NFOAP

Answer 3

Aggravated assault

Answer 4

Prosecution must prove requirements for assault and that is caused harm

Answer 5

S1(1) harm is body or mind pain or unconstious

Answer 6

R v Miller R v Ireland

Answer 7

Facts: The defendant violently raped his wife while they were going through divorce proceedings. At the time, marital rape was not recognised as a crime. The prosecution therefore charged him with assault causing harm (actual bodily harm). Holding: The court held that actual bodily harm does not need to be physical injury. Psychological harm that interferes with the victim’s health or comfort is sufficient. Therefore, mental suffering or injury to the victim’s state of mind can fall within the definition of actual bodily harm.

Answer 8

Facts: Case of harassment over the phone which caused distress to the vic>ms. Held: It constituted assault because it satisfied the immediacy requirement; the victims had a reasonable apprehension of immediate violence and it caused the victim's psychological harm.

Answer 9

Summary- 12 months/2.5k fine or both Indictment- upt o 5 years and or fine

Answer 10

‘injury which creates a substan/al risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement or substan/al loss or impairment of the mobility of the body as a

Answer 11

fine/imprisonment for life/both

Answer 12

Section 25 provides that, in trials for the offence of causing harm or serious harm, the prosecution can introduce a certificate signed by a doctor relating to an examination of the victim. This provision removes the need for the doctor to come into court and testify in person; the certificate can instead be introduced to prove the victim’s injuries. It therefore eases the evidential burden on prosecutors.

Answer 13

DPP v AC DPP v Kirwan

Answer 14

Facts: A medical certificate under Section 25 had been signed by a doctor who had not personally examined the victim. Held: The Supreme Court held that Section 25 requires the doctor who signs the certificate to have personally carried out the examination of the victim.

Answer 15

Held: The legislation did not mark any major departure from the traditional understanding of serious harm or grievous bodily harm. Serious harm does not require proof of an injury with long-term or permanent consequences. In disfigurement cases, the final outcome of medical treatment must be considered, not just the immediate appearance of the injury. Where substantial impairment of mobility or bodily function is alleged, the impairment need not be permanent, but the jury must be satisfied that it is substantial.

Answer 16

s 3- causing harm doesnt require mens rea explicityly but needs proof of assault and assault requires mens rea s4: expressly requires proof of intention or recklessness

Answer 17

r v Mowatt

Answer 18

It was irrelevant that an accused had not foreseen that his actions might cause GBH; it was sufficient that he had foreseen some physical harm to the victim.

Answer 19

Section 2 defines assault as the infliction of force, or causing the apprehension of force, without consent. Consent operates as a defence: the prosecution must prove lack of consent as part of the offence. Section 2(3) excludes liability for minor, harmless physical contact arising from ordinary social interaction (e.g., bumping into someone in a crowd). Section 3 (assault causing harm) is silent on consent – it does not expressly require the assault to be "without consent." → Creates uncertainty as to whether consent can be relied upon as a defence under this section.

Answer 20

Minister for Justice v Dolny R v Brown

Answer 21

Absence of consent is not an element of the Section 3 offence (assault causing harm). For the purposes of s.3(1), assault is not defined by reference to Section 2(1) of the 1997 Act. Assault (s.2) and assault causing harm (s.3) are distinct and separate offences. The Supreme Court confirmed that consent is not a defence to assault causing harm. Assault causing harm is considered an offence of strict liability: it does not require proof that the accused intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused harm.

Answer 22

Former member of the Gardaí was a prisoner and was assaulted by the defendant. Defendant claimed the victim had asked to be assaulted to be moved to another prison; victim denied this. Held: Defendant found guilty of assault causing harm under s.3 of the 1997 Act. Consent was not allowed as a defence: s.3 is a stand-alone offence, and if consent were a defence, it would have been explicitly stated. Supreme Court: Consent is not absolute; it cannot be used as a defence where the act is illegal or unlawful. Confirmed that ‘assault’ has the same meaning in both s.2 and s.3. s.3 is a compound offence: first, assault is proved (as in s.2), then an additional element of consequential harm is established. The absence of consent is an ingredient of the s.3 offence. Consent may still be potentially relevant for s.4 offences (causing serious harm).

Assault Flashcards

(48 cards)