Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

criminal law > non fatal offences > Flashcards

non fatal offences Flashcards

(68 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Assault

A

To intentionaly or recklessly cause another person to fear immediate unlawful personal violence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Actus reus for assault

A

Requires act or words - not necessary for physical contact
Actus reus is completed when D does any act or says something which causes V to believe unlawful force us about to be used against him/her
There must be a positive act
Fear if unwanted. Touch is enough - it does not have to be serious touch.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Key cases fur assault actus reus - words

A

Ireland 1998
Constanta 1997

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Ireland 1998

A

D made several silent phone calls to 3 women

V may fear that the purpose of the phone call is to determine if sge us ar home and the caller is about to come in her home immediately after the call.

Held - silence can be sufficient for a charge of assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Constanza 1997

A

Letters sent by a stalker were interpreted as clear threats abd there was fear of violence at some time

Held - silence can be assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Key case for Fear of force

A

Logdon 1976

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Logdon 1976

A

D as a joke pointed a gun at a v. Who was terrified until she was told it was fake.

V had apprehended immediate physical violence abd D had been at the very least, reckless as to whether this would occur.

a thrat to harm somoe can amount to an assault- fear

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Actus reus - fear of force

A

Act/words must cause V to fear that immediate force is going to be used against them

If it is obvious that D can it use force, there is no assault
- D shouts threat from a passing plane/ train
- pointing a unloaded gun at someone who knows it is unloaded (lamb)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Key case for words cancelling out any assault

A

Turberville v Savage 1669

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Turberville v savage 1669

A

A man put his hand on his sword and said. If it were not assize-time. I would take such language from you.

Held - words can cancel out assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Actus reus - immediate force

A

The force must be immediately but thus does not mean instantaneous but imminent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Key case for immediate force

A

Smith v chief constable of working 1983

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Smith v chief constable of working 1983

A

D entered a prove garden ar night and looked through the windows of v. She was terrified and thought he was about to enter the room and subject to violence.
D was guilty of assult
Held - force must be immediately but this does not mean instantaneous

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is Mens Rea to assault

A

An intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful violence.

OR

Recklessness as to whether such fear is caused

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Basic intent

A

Assault is a basic intent crime - this mean that doing that AR while intoxicated classes as recklessness and is no defence

intention to commit actus reus - fear

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Key case for basic intent

A

DPP V Majewski 1976

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

DPP V Majewski 1976

A

D consumed large amounts of drugs and alcohol and then attacked the landlord. Landlord called the police and D also attacked the police officer.
held - getting intoxicated by drink of drugs was a reckless course of conduct and reckless is enough to constitute the necessary MR in assault cases.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Essay plan

A

I - which offences are present

D - state the definition of the offence/describe what it means

A- apply the definition to the problem using relevant case law to back up your explanation

S- summarise in whether D would be guilty and what sentence he will receive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Battery definition

A

To intentionally or recklessly app,h unlawful force to another

Actus reus - application of force

There must be some force - touching is enough

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Key case for battery

A

R v thomas 1985

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

R v thomas 1985

A

Caretaker charged with indecent assault after touching the hem of a 12 year old skirt

Whilst it was determined that there wasn’t an indecent act, it was decided that if you touch clothing whilst a person is wearing them, this is equivalent to touching them

Held - thee must be some force touching is enough

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Fagan

A

accidently drove his car onto a police officers foot and whenhe was aksed to move he refused.although he didnt have the intentonat thetimeof the act the continuing act of his refusal makes him guilty of batterey

Held - Force can be continuing act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Collins v willcock 1984

A

2 police officers saw D soliciting. They asked her to get into the police car did questioning but she refused and walked away, one of the police officers walked after her trying to find out her identity and took her by the arm to prevent her leaving, she Navajo abuse and scratched the officers arm.

She was convicted of assuming a oikcuve office. She applied and the courts held that the officer had committed battery against her as he was applying unlawful force (if he was arresting her it would of been lawful)

The court said that touching a person to get his attention was acceptable proving that no cdffdd of physical contact was used then necessary. Physical restraint was not acceptable

Held - unlawful force there for police officer was guilty of battery however if he was arresting her it would have been lawful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Examples Lawful force

A
  • implied consent in normal social situations
  • tap on the shoulder to get attention
  • hosting on public transport
  • bumping in corridors at school
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Key cases for actus reus - indirect act
DPP v K 1990 Havstead (2000)
26
DPP v K 1990
D had acid in a hand drier in the bathroom, The next person to use the drier was sprayed with acid - this was held to ne the indirect application of force Held - indirection of force
27
Men Rea (same as assult) - battery
Intention to apply unlawful physical force OR Recklessness that the force will be applied
28
Important thing to remember about battery
It is purely an application of force Thus force can be merely contact, as long as the contract is unlawful There is no requirement for V to have suffered any kind of injury or harm If D applies unlawful force with either intent or recklessness his is guilty of battery.
29
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Whoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasionally actual bodily harm shall be liable, at the discretion court, to be kept in Leno servitude for the term of three years or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard Kabila and whosevee shall,be convicted upon an idicemnt for a common assult should be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be Imprisoned for any term not exceeding one years with or without hard labour
30
Offences against the person act s47 ABH
Ar - common assult, occasionally, bodily harm Mr- intention/ recklessness as to an assult/battery
31
S47 abh
All mr and ar elements of battery + actual bodily harm causation MR
32
In s 47 abh it must be proved there was an assault or battery
All ar/mr elements battery need to be present Exam tip - so you will do an IDA for assuaging or battery first, then go on to discuss the extra elements that make it s.47 ABH
33
AR - causation
Occasioning means causation It needs to be proved that the assault/battery committed by the D actually caused the ABH injuries. So factual and legal causation
34
Definition and key cases for harm
Chan-fook 1994
35
Chan-folk 1994
Harm means injury and actual means the harm must be noticeable - not just a scratch or touch - it doenst have to be serious though. Not so trivial to be wholly Insignificant - which means = it can’t be something so minor that it basically doesn’t count. Held - also includes psychiatric injury (but not mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic)
36
T v DPP 2003
V was chased by D, V fell to the ground and was kicked by D. This caused V to lose consciousness for a brief period. Losing consciousness, even momentarily, can constitute ABH.
37
Smith (2006)
D cut off Vs pony-tail with scissors. Since ABH isn’t limited to injury and extends to hurt and damage as long as not trivial. ABH applies to all parts of the body, including hair. Whilst a bruise technically constitutes ABH - it is unlikely the CPS would prosecute
38
Exam tip
Mens rea Intent/recklessness as to an adult or battery There is not an operate MR for ABH - it is the MR from the relevant assailant or battery which much be present. - all need to briefly mention mens rea for a s.47 ABH is that of the original assault or battery as discussed above. Where D wither intends or is reckless in terms of an assault/batterey, if he causes harm which constitutes to actual bodily harm he is guilty of a.47 OAPA
39
Key case for mens rea of actual bodily harm
Roberta 1971 Savage 1991
40
Roberta 1971
V was a passenger in Ds car and injured herself when jumping from the vehicle without it was moving. D had the MR to commit a battery - the injuries were caused by the battery’s so he was guilty of a.47 ABH
41
Savage 1991
D threw beer at victim, but accidentally let go of The beer glass, causing much more serious injuries that were intended. Court confirmned that for a s.47 offences (or s.20) it is intent or reckless to the common assault (or some harm for s.20)
42
Grievous bodily harm
Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously would or inflict any gracious bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instructmrng, shall be guilty of a misdemannor and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of court, to be kept in penal servitude for the team of three years. Or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.
43
Inflicting bodily injury, with or without weapon
Whose ever shall unlawfully and maliciously woukd or inflict gracious bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument. Shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years
44
Gracious bodily harm s20 definition
Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously would or inflict any gracious bodily harm upon any person, either with or without any weapon or instrument shall be guilty of an offence
45
46
R- unlawful GBH
No consent to the act . Subject to age restriction set out by statute, it is not an unlawful act to have a tattoo or a piercing . As long as consent is genuine
47
AR gbh - wound
A break in the continuity (surface) of the skin - both layers of the skin (an open wound with blood loos usually)
48
JCC v Eisenhower 1984
V was hit by an air gun pellet in the eye. He suffered bruising and internal bleeding in the eye. Not wounding, as there was no wound breaking the skin
49
50
Ar - gracious bodily harm
GBH = Smith really serious harm -> Saunders serious harm
51
AR - gracious bodily harm case
Bollom 2003
52
Bollom 2003
D caused severe bruising to a 17 month old baby COFA held, vs age and health are relevant when deciding whether and injury amounted to GBH You have to assess the effects of the harm to the particular victim
53
Burstow 1997
Does not require an assult or batterey Need only be shown that Ds actions caused (led to) the consequence of v Suffering GBH No difference between the world inflict in s20 and cause in s18
54
Dica 2004
D had sec with 2 women when he knew he was HIV positive. Both women contracted HIV as a result. There is no doubt that infecting someone with HIV is inflicting gracious bodily harm. Biological harm (HIV)
55
Brown and Stratton 1998
V was a transsexual who went to the market stall where his father worked. The farther felt humiliated to see his son as a women and along with his cousin attacked v with a chair, causing a broken nose, 3 lost teeth and a concussion. The combination of the injuries was held to amount to Gregory’s bodily harm
56
AR - causation factual and legal
Men’s real - maliciously Maliciously means intentionally or recklessly causing some harm. Not the level of the harm (ie wounding/ GBH) - Cunningham So - must prove D either intended their act to result in some unlawful bodily harm to v. Or was subjectively reckless as to the risk that his act might result in such harm Parameter 1991
57
Parameter 1991
Accused does not have to foresee that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity within the definition GBH
58
A.18 gracious bodily harm with intent
Definition - whosever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever round or cause any grevious bodily harm to any person, with intent to do some greviosy boldiky harm to any person
59
Actually reus for s.18 greviosu bodily harm
Same as for a.29 .unlawful (no consent) . Would - (JCC v Einsenhower) - break in the continuity of skin GBH - (really serious harm, bollam, dica brown and stratton. Smith, Saunders . Causation - factual and legal. Paget/white/jordan/roberts/ blaue
60
Men’s rea
Direct to cause GBH Taylor 2009
61
Taylor 2009
V was found with scratches across his face and a stand would in his back. Photographs of the scratches showed more than surface depth of the wound. The medical evidence did not held in showering whether D had intended to cause really serious injury. The judge directed the hurt must be sure that the orosecutyion had proved that D had intended to cause gBH harm or to wound. D was convicted of a s18 offence. On appeal the court quashed the condition on the basis the judge misdirected the jury. An intention to would was not sufficient for the men’s tea of s18 instead, the court appeal susittited a conviction for s20. Held. And intention to wound is not enough for a.18
62
Foresight of consequences - oblique intention
If the act of the D is virtually certain to cause GBH and the D realises that this is so, the D has the necessary men’s tea for s.18 Belfon 1976
63
Belfon 1976
D slashed v with a razor blade causing severe wounds to his face and chest. Court said in order to establish a a.18 offence the specific intent part of the offence must be proven. D being reckless to whether such harm (ie GBH) would be the result in not sufficient.
64
Men’s rea - arrest
Where D is trying to resist or prevent arrest of detantion then the level of intention regarding the injury is lower D must have had specific intention to resit or prevent arrest but only needs to have been reckless to whether his actions would wound or injury. Morrisons 1989
65
Morrison 1989
Police officer grabbed d to arrest him but d leapt through a window n dragging the officer who was badly cut by glass. D was convicted as either intended injury or realised risk of it occurring and took risk.
66
67
68

criminal law (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions