Assault Flashcards
BIGNELL has acrimoniously split up with YEARSLEY (his long-time girlfriend) and there is a nasty feud between them regarding access to their 6-month-old baby. BIGNELL is chatting to a friend of his on a street corner when he sees YEARSLEY walking towards him holding their baby held in her arms. Seeing YEARSLEY is too much for BIGNELL who loses his temper and runs up to YEARSLEY and punches her in the face causing a serious injury (a fractured cheekbone). The force of the blow causes YEARSLEY to drop the baby and the consequently the baby is caused slight injury when it hits the pavement (some minor bruising to the baby’s arm).
Thinking about the law relating to offences of assault (particularly the offences of common assault( contrary to s. 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) and actual bodily harm (contrary to s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861), which of the following comments is correct?
A. BIGNELL has committed a s. 39 offence against YEARSLEY and also the 6-month-old baby (a battery in both cases).
B. BIGNELL has committed a s.39 battery offence against YEARSLEY but no offence in relation to the 6-month-old baby.
C. BIGNELL has committed a s. 47 assault against YEARSLEY and the 6-month-old baby.
D. BIGNELL has committed a s. 47 assault against YEARSLEY and a s. 39 offence (a battery) against the 6-month-old-baby.
A common assault by battery (beating) involves the actual use of force by an assailant on a victim but only results in very minor or no perceivable injury. It is the intentional or reckless application of force on another and can range from a push to a punch, and depends on how much harm is done, and the injury received. The application of force can be carried out indirectly - the circumstances of the question are such an example where injury is caused to the baby by BIGNELL punching YEARSLEY who drops the baby to the ground causing slight injury. This is a s. 39 offence (a battery) meaning that answers B and C are eliminated. The offence under s. 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (AOABH or ABH) is exactly the same as a s. 39 offence but can be distinguished from a s. 39 by the degree of injury. R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 at 509, [1934] All ER Rep 207 suggested that ‘bodily harm has its ordinary meaning’ and includes ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than merely transient and trifling’. A fractured cheekbone is certainly such an injury and you are told that it is ‘serious’ therefore a charge of s. 47 would be appropriate in this situation, making answer A incorrect.
“WRIGHT and SAVAGE are involved in a ‘road rage’ incident with REDMOND, resulting in WRIGHT committing an offence of criminal damage to REDMOND’s car. The police are called and PC BUSHELL attends the scene of the incident. PC BUSHELL decides to arrest WRIGHT for the offence of criminal damage. WRIGHT struggles with PC BUSHELL and seeing the officer struggling, REDMOND tries to help by grabbing hold of WRIGHT. SAVAGE is outraged by what he sees and intending to stop WRIGHT’s arrest he punches PC BUSHELL and REDMOND in the face causing a large amount of bruising to PC BUSHELL’s face and several large cuts to REDMOND’s face.
Does SAVAGE commit the offence of assault with intent to resist arrest (contrary to s. 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)?”
A. Yes, but only against PC BUSHELL.
B. No, SAVAGE does not commit the offence as he is not resisting his own arrest.
C. Yes, against PC BUSHELL and REDMOND.
D. No, SAVAGE does not commit the offence as he does not use a weapon to commit the assaults against PC BUSHELL and REDMOND.
“The assault need not be committed by the person who is being detained or arrested (making answer B incorrect). There is no requirement for a weapon to be used to commit the assault (making answer D incorrect). The offence under s. 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is committed when a person assaults any person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person for any offence (the offence applies to the police officer and REDMOND) so answer A is incorrect.
TOLHURST has discovered his girlfriend, LAYNE, has been seeing another man and is livid about the situation. TOLHURST and LAYNE live together in a flat and to get revenge, TOLHURST waits for LAYNE to return to the flat from work and as she walks through the front door he jumps on her, produces a pair of kitchen scissors and cuts off a large part of her hair held in a ponytail. TOLHURST does not cause any bruising or bleeding to LAYNE’s scalp and does not cause her any physical pain.
Following case law decisions regarding offences of assaults, would TOLHURST’s actions amount to an offence of assault in these circumstances?
A. No - as the hair grows outside the body and is considered ‘dead’.
B. Yes - the appropriate charge in such a situation would be a battery (under s. 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988).
C. No - as LAYNE was not caused any bruising or bleeding and did not feel any pain.
D. Yes - the appropriate charge in such a situation would be actual bodily harm (under s. 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
Assault (under s. 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) and actual bodily harm (under s. 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861) are the same behaviours distinguished by the degree of injury caused to the victim(s). Case law decisions can be extremely influential when considering what charge is appropriate and the circumstances of this question mirror the circumstances of the case law decision in DPP v Smith (Michael Ross) [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin), [2006] 2 All ER 16. Here, the term ‘harm’ for the purposes of s. 47 was interpreted broadly. In this case the victim visited her ex-partner who then cut off her ponytail. Although hair grows outside the body and might therefore be considered as dead, and the victim did not feel physical pain in the normal sense, such an act was held to amount to actual bodily harm.
JOHNSON is the leader of a gang and hates QUINN who is the leader of a rival gang. JOHNSON is walking along a street with LLOYD (who is a member of JOHNSON’s gang) when he sees QUINN walking along the other side of the road. JOHNSON says to LLOYD ‘There’s that bastard QUINN - I’m gonna kill him now!’ JOHNSON opens his coat and LLOYD can see him put his hand on a gun in his pocket. JOHNSON isn’t actually going to shoot QUINN; he is simply showing off to LLOYD and intends to make him think he will kill QUINN. LLOYD does not believe JOHNSON would shoot QUINN but makes a show of holding JOHNSON back and QUINN walks away unharmed.
Does JOHNSON commit an offence of threats to kill (contrary to s. 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)?
A. No, because JOHNSON does not intend to kill QUINN.
B. Yes, because JOHNSON intends LLOYD to believe he would kill QUINN.
C. No, because the threat is not believed by LLOYD.
D. Yes, the fact that a threat to kill has been made is enough (whether the person making it intends it to be believed or not).
An offence under s. 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is committed by a person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person (in this case the threat is made by JOHNSON to LLOYD to kill QUINN) . This offence is all about the intention of the offender - if they make the threat with that intention in mind then the offence is complete (correct answer B). The fact that JOHNSON does not intend to kill QUINN or that LLOYD does not believe JOHSON does not matter (answers A and C are incorrect).If JOHNSON did not intend to make another fear the threat would be carried out the offence would not be committed (answer D is incorrect for this reason).
Common assault as a threat s39 CJA
Common assault as a threat s39 CJA
Any act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.
Common assault as a threat s39 CJA
Any act which ____ or ____ causes another person to apprehend _____ and unlawful ____ ______.
Common assault as a threat s39 CJA
Any act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.
Defences for Common assault as a threat s39 CJA
- during a contact sport
- self defence facing imminent attack
- to stop a crime currently occurring
Points to prove for Common assault as a threat s39 CJA
- victim apprehends a real threat (doesn’t need to be scared)
- suspect acted deliberately
Common assault (battery) s39 CJA
Common assault (battery) s39 CJA Any act which intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force on another.
Common assault (battery) s39 CJA Any act which \_\_\_\_\_ or \_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_ unlawful \_\_\_\_ on another.
Common assault (battery) s39 CJA Any act which intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force on another.
Details about Common assault (battery) s39 CJA
- Can be carried indirectly
- Even slightest degree of force is battery
s47 OPA
Actual Bodily Harm s47 OPA
Any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes injury to another.
ABH s47 OPA details
- Injury should be more than transient and trifling
- Injury possible to see or feel
- Includes psychiatric injury or psychological damage
- Includes cutting lots of hair
GBH s20 OPA
GBH s20 OPA
Unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person.
GBH s20 OPA
____ and ____ by ____ means whatsoever ___ or cause any ____ ____ ____ to any person.
GBH s20 OPA
Unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person.
