Non-fatal offences against the person Flashcards
(46 cards)
What is the definition of assault?
An act by a D which causes the V to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force with intention or subjective recklessness as to whether fear is caused.
What is the actus reus of assault? in two parts
> an act
>which cause the V to apprehend infliction of immediate unlawful force
What principle does the case of R v Constanza (1997) support and what are the facts?
Principle: that written words can constitute an assault.
Facts: D had written 800 letters last two letters interpreted by V as clear threats.
What case supports the principle that written words can constitute an assault?
R v Constanza (1997)
What principle does the case of R v Ireland (1997) support and what are the facts?
Principle: that silent telephone calls can constitute assault.
What principle does the case of Smith v Chief Superintendent Woking (1983) support and what are the facts?
Principle: Fear of what D would do next was sufficient for the actus reus of assault.
Facts: D looked through V’s bedroom window late at night.
What case supports the principle that silent telephone calls can constitute an assault?
R v Ireland (1997)
What case supports the principle that fear of what D would do next was sufficient for the actus reus of assault?
Smith v Chief Superintendent Woking (1983)
Facts: D looking through V garden window.
What principle does the case of Tuberville v Savage (1669) support and what are the facts?
Principle: Words can prevent an act from being an assault depending on the circumstances.
Facts: D placed hand on sword but uttered that he would not apply unlawful force in this circumstance.
What case supports the principle of words can prevent an act from being an assault?
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
Facts: hand on weapon, saying ‘if it were not for assize time, I would not take such language from you’-D not liable.
What is the definition of ‘battery’?
The application of unlawful force to another person with intention to apply or recklessness as to whether it is applied.
What is the actus reus of battery?
The application of unlawful force to another person.
What 2 cases support the principle that force includes even the slightest touching?
1) Collins v Wilcock (1984) Woman wrongfully ‘grabbed’ by police
2) Wood v DPP (2008) Man wrongfully ‘grabbed’ by police
What principle does the case of Collins v Wilcock (1984) support and what are the facts?
Principle: Any touching may be a battery, and always is if there was a physical restraint.
Facts: a police officer held a woman’s arm to prevent her walking away.
What principle does the case of Wood v DPP (2008) support and what are the brief facts?
Principle: Any touching may be considered a battery.
Facts: Police officer restrained Wood physically but was not arresting him-officer found to have committed battery.
What case supports the principle of a ‘continuing act’?
Fagan v Met Police Commissioner (1968)
What principle does the case of Fagan v Met Police Commissioner (1968) support and what are the brief facts?
Principle: A continuing act can constitute a battery as long as mens rea and actus reus have coincidence.
Facts: D parks on police officer’s foot by accident initially but then forms intention when D realises his act.
What cases support the principle that an ‘indirect act’ can constitute a battery?
A) R v Martin (1881) Bar across theatre doorway causing injury in ensuing panic
B) DPP v K (1990) schoolboy hid acid in hand dryer
What principle does the case of R v Martin (1881) support and what are the brief facts?
Principle: ‘indirect act’ can constitute a battery.
Facts: D blocked doorway and caused panic in theatre-injuries occurred-convicted s20 OAPA
What principle does the case of DPP v K (1990) support and what are the brief facts?
Principle: ‘indirect act’ can constitute a battery.
Facts: Schoolboy injures another person with sulphuric acid by hiding it in hand dryer-convicted s47 OAPA-mens rea held to be recklessness.
What case supports the principle that an ‘omission’ can constitute a battery?
DPP v Santa Bermudez (2003)
Facts: D had needle in pocket and didn’t tell police officer who was searching him.
What principle does the case of DPP v Santa Bermudez (2003) support and what are the brief facts?
Principle: that an omission can constitute a battery.
Facts: D failed to tell police officer that he had needle in pocket-officer injured when searching D.
What case supports the principle that getting drunk is a reckless course of conduct and therefore sufficient for mens rea of battery?
DPP v Majewski (1976)
Facts: D attacked landlord of pub and police who were called-found to have sufficient mens rea as reckless course of conduct to get drunk.
What principle does the case of DPP v Majewski (1976) support and what are the brief facts?
Principle: Getting drunk is a reckless course of conduct-sufficient for mens rea of battery.
Facts: D was heavily drunk and attacked landlord and police officers.
