Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

A-level Law > Non-Fatal Offences > Flashcards

Non-Fatal Offences Flashcards

(53 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

What did Legal academic Professor J.C Smith describe the Offences against the Person Act 1861 as?

A

“ragbag of offences brought together from a wide variety of sources with no attempt…. to introduce consistency as to the substance or as to form”

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

What act is battery and assault charged under?

A

S.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
(summary level)
(basic intent)
( unlimited fine since LASPO 2012 and imprisonment of max 6 months)

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

State the case and definition of assault

A

Collins v Wilcock
“an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force”

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

State the case and definition of battery

A

Collins v Wilcock
“actual infliction of unlawful force”

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

What must an assault be?

A

An act
must use words or physical actions to assault, an omission is not sufficient

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

What did the CA state in the case of Nelson?

A

“What is required is for D to do something of a physical kind which causes someone else to apprehend that they are about to be struck”

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

What happened in the case of Logdon? (Physical gesture)

A

D pointed a fake gun at V. V apprehended immediate unlawful force and D was subjectively reckless as to whether she would apprehend such violence.

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

What happened in the case of Ireland? (Phone calls)

A

D made numerous silent phone calls to 3 women who as a result suffered psychological harm. Convicted for a S.47 based on assault.

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

What happened in the case of Constanza? (written or spoken words)

A

D had been stalking V, making numerous silent phone calls and sent over 800 letters. D was convicted on a S.47 after the CA rejected the claim that a person cannot apprehend immediate violence unless they see the perpetrator

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

What happened in the case of Tuberville regarding the use of additional words negating assault?

A

D put his hand on his sword (physical gesture) however at the same time his words negated the assault/ threat

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

What happened in the case of Light regarding the use of additional words negating assault?

A

D raised his sword above his wife’s head and said “were it not for the bloody policeman outside, I would split your head open”. This was still deemed assault as his words were not sufficient enough to negate the assault

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

What was confirmed in the case of Lamb regarding the actus reus of apprehending ?

A

Court decided that pointing an unloaded gun at V (who knows it is unloaded) cannot be assault as V does not apprehend

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

What is the laws opinion regarding the actus reus of assault “immediate”?

A

Does not simple mean instantaneous, instead it means “imminent”

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

What happened in the case of Smith?

A

V from her ground floor bedroom saw D standing outside in her garden at night. Although D was outside and no attack could be amde at the immediate moment D was convicted of assault as V did apprehend. Apprehension of what the D could do next.

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

What is the laws view regarding the actus reus “unlawful force” of assault?

A

Apprehension of any unlawful force is sufficient
=If the force is lawful then there can be assault

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

Why is the actus reus of “force” regarding battery slightly misleading?

A

=battery can be the slightest touch, there is no need to prove that any harm or pain was caused, a more accurate description would be “unlawful contact”

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

State the laws view on the application of force regarding battery

A

Collins v Wilcock
“It has long been established that any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to battery”

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

What happened in the case of Thomas? (actus reus- clothing)

A

D touched the hem of a 12 year old girls skirt. CA said in Obiter that touching someone’s clothes whilst they are wearing them is “equivalent to touching him/her”

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

What happened in the case of Fagon? (Actus reus- continuing act)

A

D accidental drove his car over police however after failing to remove it after, led to the formation of his mens rea. Therefore the AR was a continuing act

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

What happened in the case of DPP v K?

A

School boy took sulphuric acid from lesson and hid it hairdryer. Student used hairdryer and was sprayed with the acid. D convicted of S.47

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

True or false battery can be committed as an omission?

A

True
But only where D was under a duty to act

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

What happened in the case of Santana-Bermudez?

Study These Flashcards
A

D said there was no needles on his person when asked by police officer before searching him. She put her hands in his pockets and was pricked by needle. D omission led to the creation of a dangerous situation

23
Q

Regarding the mens rea of Battery “unlawful force” state a case

Study These Flashcards
A

Collins v Wilcock
Police have legal authority when arresting suspect however if officer makes contact for no legal reason they are committing battery. Police tried to grab women to prevent her from leaving station, she scratched him. Her conviction for battery dropped as she was acting in self-defence

24
Q

When can the courts imply our consent to contact?

Study These Flashcards
A

Collins v Wilcock
“everyday jostle”

25
Cam battery exist without assault?
Yes, V can be struck from behind
26
What is the mens rea for assault?
#1 and #3 #1= Direct intent for making V apprehend unlawful force (via an act) #3= Subjectively recklessness for making V apprehend unlawful force (via an act)
27
What is the mens rea for battery?
#1 and #3 #1=Direct intent for applying unlawful force to V (via act or omission) #3=Subjectively recklessness for applying unlawful force to V (via act or omission)
28
What is S.47?
aggravated assault based upon either assault or battery ABH
29
What is the sentence for a S.47?
5 years
30
True or false ABH S.47 is triable either way and basic intent?
true
31
What act is S.47 found under?
S.47 Offences against the Person Act 1861
32
How was Actual Bodily Harm defined as in Donovan?
the injury must be "more than merely transient and trifling"
33
What case supports the actus reus being physical harm unconsciousness)?
T v DPP D and others chased V. V fell to ground and was kicked. V temporarily lost consciousness. D convicted of S.47 ABH
34
What happened in the case of DPP v Smith (physical cutting hair (substantial amount))?
Without her consent D cut off ex-girlfriends hair. D tried to argue it was not ABH as it was dead tissue and had not caused any bruising or bleeding. However on appeal it was deemed that cutting a substantial amount of hair was ABH
35
What is the laws view on Phycological harm?
In the case of Miller the courts accepted that phycological harm would amount to ABH.
36
What was confirmed in the case of R v Chan-Fook?
"The phrase "actual bodily harm" is capable of including psychiatric injury... but it does not include mere emotions"
37
What is the mens rea for S.47?
Same as battery or assault =S.47 is a consequence crime therefore, D can be guilty of ABH in cases where they did not mean to cause injury
38
What was confirmed in the HL in the case of Savage?
D went to local pub and saw her ex-husband's new girlfriend. D threw beer over her, however in doing so the class slipped and broke, injuring V's wrist. D said she only intended to throw beer (battery) and had not intended for V to be injured, arguing she lacked the MR for ABH. Court rejected this argument. With Lord Ackner stating "the verdict of ABH may be returning on proof of an assault or battery together with proof of the fact that actual bodily harm was occasioned"
39
What happened in the case of Roberts?
D gave V a lift in his car and made sexual advances towards V. Fearing D was going to sexually assault her V jumped from the car and injured herself. D was convicted of ABH as he performed the AR of S.47 by making her apprehend unlawful contact as well as touching her clothes, D tried to argue he lacked MR for S.47 as he had not intended any injury=court disagreed.
40
What is the sentence for a S.20?
5 years
41
What is a S.20?
either unlawfully wounded or unlawfully inflicted grievous bodily harm
42
True or false S.20 is a basic intent crime, triable either way?
true
43
Define what is meant by wounding?
=break the continuity of the whole skin and therefore commonly accompanied by bleeding
44
What happened in the case of Eisenhower?
D fired an air pistol hitting V in the eye with the pellet. This did not rupture the eye but did cause internal bleeding. As there was no cut it was held that this was not a wound as the skin had not been broken. Though it did amount to a S.20
45
What happened in the case of wood?
Vs collar bone was broken but the skin was intact and therefore this was not a wound but still considered GBH
46
What is meant by Grievous bodily harm?
=really serious harm which can be physical, psychological or biological In DPP v Smith the Hl emphasised that when explaining GBH to a jury, it should be given its ordinary and natural meaning. i.e "really serious harm" Such harm does not need to be life threatening
47
When determining whether GBH has been inflicted the courts will need to consider what?
the particular characteristics of the V such as the age and Health. Therefore to gauge the severity of injuries, an assessment must be made of the effect of the harm on the particular V
48
What happened in the case of Bollom?
V was a 17 month baby who suffered bruising. D, the mother's partner, argued that the severity of injuries needed to be considered without considering factors relating to V. Court of appeal rejected argument and stated bruising could amount to GBH even though bruising of this type on a healthy adult would be less serious compared to that of a very small child. Injuries should be considered in the context of "real life"
49
What was confirmed in the case of Burstow?
Hl confirmed that Psychological harm can be GBH. In the case D became obsessed with V and started to stalk her this caused V to suffer depression and panic attacks.
50
What happened in the case of Dica?
First ever conviction of biological GBH. D had unprotected sex with Vs without making them aware he had HIV. D convicted of inflicting "biological" GBH
51
What happened in the case of Martin?
=S.20 via an implement D placed iron bar across the doorway of the theatre and then turned of lights and shouted fire. Several members of the audience were injured when trying to escape
52
What was confirmed in the case of Burstow over the Actus reus "inflicting"?
Confirmed that S.20 GBH can be committed where no physical force has been applied on the body. It is sufficient for D "to cause" psychological harm".
53
What

A-level Law (39 decks)

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