Chapter 8- (Non-fatal Offences Against The Person) Flashcards
(12 cards)
What are the Non-fatal offences?
The offences are based on whether or not the victim was injured, how seriously and what the defendant intended
The main offences are…
1.assault
2.battery
3.assault occasioning in actual bodily harm under s47 offences against the person act 1861
4.malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm under s20 OAPA 1861
5.malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to do some harm under s18 OAPA 1861
What kind of offences are assault and battery?
Assault and battery are common law offences- there is no statutory definition
These offences are collectively known as common assault. Although assault and battery are both common law offences they are charged under s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
This act sets out the maximum punishment which is 6 months imprisonment or a fine of £5000, or both
They are both basic intent offences
What is assault?
Assault is an act which causes the victim to apprehended the infliction of immediate unlawful force with either intention or recklessness
Actus Reus:
There must be an act which actually causes the victim to apprehended the infliction of immediate unlawful force
An act: requires a positive act( not an omission) including words. Words can be verbal or written as seen in R v Constanta (1997): a stalking case, it was held that phone calls and 800 letters to the victims was assault
In R v Ireland(1997) it was held that when silent phone calls can be assault
Definition of assault was seen in R v Nelson 2013: The Court of Appeal stated “what is required for common assault is for the D to have sone something of a physical kind which causes someone else to apprehend they are about to be struck.
Assault- what can cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force?
The important point is that the act or words must cause the victim to apprehend that immediate unlawful force is going to be used against them.
There is no assault if it is obvious that the defendant can not actually use force/ it was decided in R v Lamb(1967) that pointing an unloaded gun at someone who knows that it is unloaded can not be assault. This is because the other person does not fear immediate unlawful force
Fear of unwanted touching is sufficient, as the force or unlawful personal violence which is feared need not be serious
The force that is threatened must be
- unlawful, if it is lawful there is no assault
-immediate- this does not mean instantaneous, but imminent as seen in Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police station 1983: intruder broke into Vs garden and looked through windows at 11pm one night, this was assault as even though he could not attack at that immediate moment , fear of what he might do next is sufficient
Words indicating that there will be no violence might prevent an act from being an assault. This principle comes from the old case of Tuberville v Savage (1669): the D placed one hand on his sword and said if it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you’. This was held not to be assault because what he said showed he was not going to do anything
What is the mens rea for assault?
An intention to cause another to fear immediate, unlawful personal violence or subjective recklessness, as to whether such fear is caused.
Assault is classed as an offence of basic intent.
What is Battery?
Battery is the second part of common assault. It is defined as the application of unlawful force to another person. This is either intending to apply unlawful physical force to another or being reckless as to whether unlawful force is required.
What is the actus reus for Battery?
Force- force is a misleading word, as it can include the slightest touch, as shown by the case of Collins v Wilcock (1984): The D appealed against the conviction for assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty. His intention was to caution her with respect to activity as a prostitute. The law did not give him power to detain her, but he took hold of her. She resisted and injured him. As there was no arrest, the attempted restraint was a battery and she was entitled to free himself.
In this case, the court pointed out that touching a person to get their attention was acceptable, provided that no greater degree of physical contact was used than was necessary. However, physical restraint was not acceptable.wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwvaq
