Assaults Flashcards
(18 cards)
What is an assault?
Any act committed intentionally or recklessly, which causes the other person to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. Force can be applied directly or indirectly.
Barton v Armstrong: the victim must needs to apprehend immediate unlawful force, the mind of the victim is the material factor, not whether or not the defendant can carry out or follow through.
Can mere words constitute an assault?
Yes, Master v Watt, words can constitute an assault. Consider:
- did the words put the victim in apprehension of physical force and
- if so, was that apprehension of physical force immediate?
Can words spoken over the telephone constitute an assault?
Yes, threats made over the phone may constitute immediate threats of violence.
Consider Barton v Armstrong:
- tone of voice
- time of call
- more than one occasion
- instil fear but constitute to threatening act
Define recklessness.
R v Coleman
Realisation of the possibility of some injury may result as a consequence, however still proceeding with the act, reckless foresight of the consequences without the intent
Define Actual Bodily Harm
It is not defined in the Crimes Act, however in R v Cameron, states that it does not need to be permanent, must be more than merely transient or trifling- bruises or scratches to a victim are typical injuries that are capable of amounting to ABH.
Psychological injury in a very serious way can also constitute ABH- Li v R
What is the definition of GBH?
DPP v Smith; very serious
What is intention?
When both elements of actus reus and mens rea present at the same time. The actus reus is the causing effect on the victim’s mind, the mens rea is intention to cause that effect. Offence occurs when they coincide- Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
What is the relevant test in relation to ABH- intention
It is not necessary to establish that the offender intends to occasion ABH, the test is whether bodily harm has been occasioned by the assault, the established principles are entirely objective- R v Percali
What section provides the defence of self-defence?
Section 418 of the Crimes Act
What test is to be applied to see if an assault was self-defence?
DPP v Katarzynski;
- The accused believed it was necessary to act as they did in self-defence (subjective)
- Conduct of the accused was a reasonable response in the circumstance they perceived it to be (objective)
Prosecution can negate self-defence (s 419)
What is the test in negating self-defence?
Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that;
- The accused did not genuinely believe that his or her conduct was necessary in self-defence (subjective) or
- The response to the danger as the accused perceived it was disproportionate (objective)
Can consent be a defence to a charge of assault occasioning ABH?
No, R v Percali explains the degree of intention that needs to be established. Mental element of the crime consists in that intention to apply unlawful force, but that is not necessary for the prosecution to establish.
Resist can be duplicitous, not assault. Explain using case law
Hull v Nuske held that an offence of resisting Police disclosed only one offence and is not bad for duplicity. This means that an offender can be charged with one account of resist, even though he resisted more than one police officer.
An offence of assault Police is bad for duplicity as this discloses a separate offence and two offences of assault should be on separate indictments
1 sequence per officer for assault police
1 sequence per incident for resist police.
Explain the case law in Preece v Boyd and McDougall
To resist an officer in the execution of his office requires some positive action on the part of the person resisting. Can be passive or active resistance. Passive resistance will require some physical action designed to defeat the officer in his efforts to perform his duty
List examples of criminal defences to assault
- lawful chastisement
- self defence
- lawful arrest
- medical examination
- physical force by accident
- use of physical force lawfully consented to
- taking of blood samples
Explain the case law in DPP v Gribble
This case relates to resist police, and extended the duty of a police officer beyond the prevention and investigation of crime to include actions reasonably necessary for the protection of persons from injury or death and property damage, regardless of whether the need for those services arises from any criminal act.
Explain the case law in Mikhael v Conroy and Smith
Identifies a continuing course of conduct, verbal and physical assaults are often associated together and comprise the one transaction- one on-going assault against the single victim.
The mere fact that a series of acts disclose escalating violence does not, of itself, prevent them from being regarded as a series of connecting acts which may properly be encompassed under the one charge of assault. Assault subsumed intimidation
What is the difference between ABH and GBH?
R v Metharam defines ABH as any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim.
GBH is defined in Swan v R, fracture to vertebrae (did not require surgery, just rest) relevant injury needs to be a really serious one, does not require it to be permanent but a really serious injury that requires ongoing care or treatment.
