Chapter 12: Non-fatal Offences - Technical assault Flashcards
What are non-fatal offences?
Where a crime against a person is possible without resulting in death (non-fatal)
Can be by frightening or causing actual injury
What are the 5 offences in this chapter?
- Grievous bodily harm (serious)
- Grievous bodily harm (normal)
- Actual bodily harm (‘mild’)
- Battery
- Assault
What are the respective statutes for each of the offences?
Grievous bodily harm (serious)
- Section 18 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
Grievous bodily harm (normal)
- Section 20 OAPA 1861
Actual bodily harm (‘mild’)
- Section 48 OAPA 1861
Battery
- Section 39 CJA 1988
Assault
- Section 39 CJA 1988
What is the overview/big picture for Technical Assault?
- Summary offence
- Basic intent crime
- Intoxication - bad defence
- Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
What is an important thing to note about citing Technical Assault?
Heading must cite both - case law (Assault) and statute (Section 39 CJA 1988)
- Statute does not contain the AR and MR (Fagan v MPC [1968]; R v Ireland [1977]; R v Burstow [1977]; R v Constanza [1977])
- Case law does not contain the sentencing provisions
“Section 38 Criminal Justice Act 1988 - Assault”
What is the sentencing/punishment for Assault?
- 6 months imprisonment
- Fine
- Both
What is the definition for Assault? Case?
Fagan v MPC [1968]
- The causing of apprehension of immediate personal violence
Other cases
- R v Ireland [1977]
- R v Burstow [1977]
- R v Constanza [1977]
What are the 5 elements of Assault?
AR
- Positive Act
- Apprehension
- Immediate
- Unlawful personal violence
MR
- Intentionally causing fear of an immediate application of force or recklessly doing so
What is a positive act? Can frightening someone constitute assault (case?)
Positive act
- Concious & voluntary movement of muscles
- Merely frightening a person is not sufficient. There has to be probability of application of force - Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police Station [1983]
What are 5 different scenarios to note about positive acts in assault?
don’t talk about these unless question raises/talks about it
- Words can be assault
- Words can negate assault
- Conditional assault
- Assault wihtout D having means to carry out threat
- Silent phone call
Can words constitute assault? What case clarifies this?
R v Ireland
- It is now accepted, although before Ireland didn’t
What case clarifies that words can negate assault?
Tuberville v Savage [1669]
Facts
- D placed his hand on his sword and said “if it was not assize time, I would not have taken such language from you,”
Held
- His words negated assault
- Whether words amount to assault or not, words can negate assault
Can conditional assault be an assault? What 2 cases that show this.
if victim does X, he threatens to do Y
If negation of assault is conditional on what the victim does, then there will still be assault (threat)
Balke v Barnard [1840]
- “I will blow your brains unless you…”
Read v Cocker
What case states that ‘assault without D having means to carry out the threat’ is still assault
Stephen v Myres
Facts
- D points an unloaded, imitation gun at V
- V is not knowing that it was fake
Held
- Still assault
What 4 cases show silent phone calls are assault?
- R v Ireland [1997]
- R v Johnson [1996]
- R v Burstow [1977]
- R v Constanza [1977]
R v Ireland [1997]
Facts
- D made numerous phone calls to 3 women and remained silent
- Women suffered psychological disorders requiring treatment
- D argued his voice did not apprehend “immediate and unlawful violence”
Held
- HOL held D was guilty of assault
- On grounds that the call caused the V to apprehend immediate and possible personal violence
What is ‘apprehension’? What there to note about it?
The victim must apprehend (anticipate) immediate personal violence
- Normally, apprehension will be explained in terms of being afraid, but that is not exactly correct (afraid doesn’t count)
- By apprehension, it means ‘anticipation of violence’
- Doesn’t necessarily mean that the person feared the violence
What is the case for apprehension?
Logdon v DPP
Facts
- D opened a drawer pointing the gun at the V
- Threatened the victim hostage
Held
- D convicted of assault
Takeaway
- As long as D anticipates violence
- The victim does not have to be “afraid” (even if he confident, it still is assault)
What is the definition of ‘immediate’?
What are the 2 definitions/interpretations for it?
Broad/wider interpretation
- Imminent - in the nearest future
Narrow interpretation
What are the 3 cases that show immediate (imminent) appehension
- Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police Station
- R v Ireland and Burstow [1998]
- R v Lewis
Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police Station
immediate - imminent apprehension
Facts
- D frightening a woman who was dressed in her night-clothes
Looking through her bedroom window
Caused her to anticipate fear
Held
- Held to be immediate, despite the fact the V could have escaped before even getting to her
Takeaway
- Courts gave a looser interpretation to ‘immediacy’
- Although the V could have taken preventative measures
R v Ireland and Burstow [1998]
immediate
Lord Steyn
- Used the term “imminent”
What is meant by ‘unlawful personal violence’?
The threat must be unlawful
Note
- A threat used in self-defence is not assault
What case carifies ‘either intentionally causing fear of an immediate application of force or recklessly doing so’
R v Venna [1976]
- If D intends or is reckless to alarm his V, the MR requirement is satisfied (even if he doesn’t intend to carry it out)
