Assault, Battery, AOABH, s18 and s20 Flashcards
(5 cards)
A man has been charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent. He is accused of scratching the victim, a friend of his, who the man passed in the street whilst the man was running away from a police officer. The man admits that he was running away in order to avoid being arrested and must have scratched the victim whilst he ran past. The man states that at the time of the offence, he had no idea that the victim, or anyone else was nearby. The police summary confirms that the scratch drew blood but did not require stitches.
Which of the following statements best describes the criminal liability of the man for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm?
Option a: The man is not liable because a scratch will not be considered a serious enough injury to amount to a wound.
Option b: The man is not liable because he did not intend harm, nor did he think there was any risk of harm, to the victim or anyone else.
Option c: The man is not liable because the victim is his friend and therefore is unlikely to support a prosecution.
.
Option d: The man is liable because it would have been obvious to an objective bystander that there was some risk of harm to the victim, and so it should have been obvious to the man.
Option e: The man is liable because he intended to resist arrest, and it does not matter whether he intended or was reckless as to any harm being caused.
Option B is correct because the man did not have the requisite mens rea, as he did not know that anyone was nearby and as such did not foresee the risk of another being injured and go on to take it anyway (recklessness), or intend to cause harm.
Option A is wrong because a scratch can amount to a wound as long as both layers of skin are broken (Moriarty).
Option C is wrong because whether a victim supports a prosecution or not, does not affect whether someone is criminally liable.
Option D is wrong because the test for recklessness is a subjective one and therefore it is irrelevant whether the man ought have seen the risk, if he truly did not.
Option E is wrong because, to be guilty of section 18, it is not enough that the man intended to resist arrest, as he must also intend or be reckless as to some harm.
The defendant is on trial for an offence of ‘Wounding with Intent’ for stabbing the victim with a knife outside a public house. He lost his temper after the victim knocked the defendant’s drink over. The defendant shouted at the victim and then pulled a knife from his pocket before stabbing the victim in the arm. The trial judge said to the jury before they retired to make their verdict:
“A person intends the consequences of his voluntary act in each of two quite separate cases: first when he desires those consequences and secondly when he foresees a risk that the consequence may occur but takes that risk anyway. You may find the defendant guilty either if he intended to wound the victim or if he was reckless as to this. Here, the evidence suggests the defendant’s act was reckless.”
The defendant was found guilty but appeals on the basis that the judge did not direct the jury accurately on the law.
In relation to the trial judge’s direction to the jury, which of the following statements is correct?
Option a: Specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Option b: The judge described the law wrongly because wounding with intent requires a specific intent either to wound or to cause grievous bodily harm.
Option c: The judge described the law wrongly because wounding with intent requires either an intent or recklessness as to causing grievous bodily harm.
Option d: The judge described the law accurately as wounding with intent requires either an intent or recklessness as to wounding the victim.
Option e: The judge described the law accurately but did not apply the law appropriately to the facts as the defendant’s act was intentional.
Option A is correct. The defendant has been charged with an offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the mens rea of which is an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. Only specific intent (here to cause GBH) will do for a s.18 offence and it cannot be committed recklessly.
Option B is wrong because a section 18 assault cannot be committed by an intention to wound.
Option C is wrong because the mens rea does not include recklessness.
Option D is wrong as the law has not been described accurately – because wounding with intent requires an intent to cause GBH.
Option E is wrong for the same reason although the second part of the sentence is correct.
A man’s neighbour has a dog which barks all day long. The man has asked the neighbour many times to shut the dog away so that it does not make so much noise. One day, the man loses his temper and marches round to the neighbour’s house. When the neighbour opens his door and sees who is there, the neighbour immediately turns away to re-enter his house as he does not want to speak to the man. The man follows him and punches the neighbour on the back of the head causing significant bruising.
Which of the following best explains whether the man is guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
Option a: The man is guilty because he intentionally caused his neighbour to apprehend immediate unlawful personal force and caused serious harm.
Option b: The man is guilty because he intentionally caused his neighbour to apprehend immediate unlawful personal force and caused harm that was more than ‘transient or trifling’.
Option c: The man is guilty because he recklessly inflicted unlawful personal force on the neighbour which caused serious harm.
Option d: The man is guilty because he intentionally inflicted unlawful personal force on the neighbour which caused harm that was more than ‘transient or trifling’.
Option e: The man is guilty because he recklessly inflicted unlawful personal force on the neighbour which caused harm that was more than ‘transient or trifling’.
ption D is the best answer because the actus reus of assault occasioning actual bodily (s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861) is that an assault is committed (here, a physical assault) and that harm is caused which is more than ‘transient or trifling’, R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1991] 1 AC 699. ‘Significant bruising’ would satisfy this.
Option A is wrong because the neighbour does not apprehend unlawful personal force as he has turned away from the man and the injury caused does not amount to serious harm.
Option B is wrong because the neighbour does not apprehend unlawful personal force as he has turned away from the man although the second part of the statement is correct.
Option C is wrong because the man intended to inflict unlawful personal force (so not recklessness) and also the injury is not ‘serious harm’.
Option E is wrong because the man intended to inflict unlawful personal force (so not recklessness).
The victim is in a night club one evening. He begins to flirt with a woman who is standing next to him at the bar when suddenly, a man marches up to him and starts shouting: “Leave my girlfriend alone, you bastard” intending the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. The victim just laughs at the man and responds: “You don’t scare me, you idiot. She can chat to who she wants!” (Incident 1).
The man then says: “If you don’t leave her alone, I’ll find you tomorrow and slash you!” (Incident 2).
The victim leans forward and kisses the woman. The man launches himself at the victim and pulls out a significant chunk of the victim’s hair (Incident 3).
The man then produces a knife and launches himself at the victim, screaming: “No-one will fancy you when I’ve finished – I’m going to cut you from ear to ear!” The victim manages to move backwards so the man only cuts the victim’s face slightly, resulting in a few drops of blood (Incident 4).
In an effort to get away, the man then pushes the victim backwards before running off. The victim hits his head on a table and suffers a fractured skull. The man states that it never crossed his mind that the victim would fall and hurt himself (Incident 5).
Which of the following statements correctly describes the man’s liability for assault?
Option a: The man is not guilty of assault in Incident 1.
Option b: The man is guilty of assault in Incident 2.
Option c: The man is not guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in Incident 3.
Option d: The man is guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm in Incident 4.
Option e: The man is guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm on the victim in Incident 5.
Option D is correct. The actus reus of s.18 OAPA 1861 is satisfied by either a wound (as here, evidenced by the blood) or grievous bodily harm; whilst the mens rea requires an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The facts state that the man intended to cut the victim from ear to ear so this would be sufficient.
Option A is wrong because the victim need only apprehend unlawful personal force; there is no requirement that the victim be afraid.
Option B is wrong. The man’s threat is conditional and refers to the next day; hence, it does not satisfy the requirement for immediacy.
Option C is wrong because assault under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 may be committed by the pulling out a substantial piece of the victim’s hair.
Option E is wrong because although the man inflicts grievous bodily harm on the victim (the fractured skull), the mens rea is not satisfied. The prosecution must prove that the man either intended or was reckless as to causing some bodily harm. However, the facts state that ‘it never crossed his mind that the victim would fall and hurt himself’.
A woman and her boyfriend are having dinner in the kitchen when an argument starts. The woman shouts at her boyfriend for burning the dinner again and she gets up to walk out. The boyfriend stands up to block her exit and she pushes him away. He falls heavily against the oven causing a large bruise on his arm.
What does the prosecution need to prove to convict the woman of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
