Fagan v MPC [1969]
Assault
- Assault is committed when the accused ‘intentionally, or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’
AR
- Must be apprehension of personal violence
- Threat of Violence must be Unlawful
- Threat of Violence must be Immediate
MR
- Intention or Recklessness
R v Lamb [1967]
Assault
Defendant must cause the victim to believe he can and will carry out the threat of force.
- Two teenagers playing Russian roulette with a revolver as a joke. Both assumed wouldn’t kill but gun went off and victim was shot. Victim did not apprehend violence so wasn’t assault.
Logdon v DPP [1976]
Assault
If the victim is caused to apprehend such a threat, it is irrelevant that the defendant does not in fact have the means to carry out that threat.
- Defendant showed Customs & Excise officer a pistol in a drawer, saying it was loaded and declaring would hold her hostage. Did not matter the defendant knew it was a replica.
R v Wilson [1955]
Assault
Words alone can constitute an assault.
‘Get out the knives’
R v Ireland; Burstow [1998]
Assault
A thing said is also a thing done
- Silent phone calls and heavy breathing constituted an assault
the victim must apprehend physical violence
Tuberville v Savage [1669]
Assault
Words can also negate assault
R v Venna [1976]
Assault
mens rea for assault is intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.
R v G [2003]
Recklessness
- did the accused foresee the risk of the outcome OR likelihood of such a risk arising ( Subjective)
AND
- Did he/she go on to take that risk AND (in light of their awareness?) was it objectively unreasonable to take that risk or was there some social utility in taking it?
The above is a composition of the tests from Cunningham and R v G
Fagan v MPC [1969]
Battery
Battery is the actual intended use of unlawful forced to another person without his consent
AR
- Application of force
- Force must be unlawful
- Without consent
MR
- Intention
- Recklessness
Collins v Wilcock [1984]
Battery
Force includes the merest touching
- Police constable grabbed a prostitute’s arms and prostitute scratched her. Police said Wilcock had no authority to grab Collins’ arm and so it was a battery.
R v Thomas [1985]
Touching clothes may constitute batter
Faulkner v Talbot [1981]
Battery
Application of force need not be aggressive
Battery is intentional touching without consent
R v Martin [1881]
Battery
Force need not be applied directly
- Defendant closed exit doors of a theatre. As people were about to leave, turned off lights and panic ensued.
DPP v K [1990]
Battery
Force need not be applied directly
- Boy took sulphuric acid to try out on loo paper. Poured it into hand dryer. Sometime later went to use the dryer and poured acid on face. K done for battery.
Fagan v MPC [1969]
Battery
Batter cannot be committed by an omission
DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003]
An omission may constitute battery
- Constable searched Santana-Bermudez; asked 3 times if had taken everything out of pocket; said yes but had needle in pocket which pricked the police officer – held to be battery
OAPA 1861, s47
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
- ‘whosoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable…to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding 5 years.’
R v Venna [1976]
Battery
mens rea for assault is intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.
DPP v Little [1992]
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
- assault has been held to be assault or battery
- Actus reus and mens rea must be established
DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003]
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
Occasioning - assault must cause the harm
Must prove factual and legal causation
R v Miller [1954]
Assault occasiong Acutal Bodily Harm
- ABH is ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim’ and ‘more than transient AND trifling’
R v Chan Fook [1994]
Assault Occasioning ABH
- Harm is a synonym for injury, and includes psychological harm. Applied a de minimus threshold to ABH. “must not be so trivial as to be insignificant”. Actual indicates it’s not insignificant.
T v DPP [2003]
Assault Occasioning ABH
A momentary loss of consciousness was ABH because involved injurious impairment of victim’s sensory functions
DPP v Smith [2006]
Assault Occasioning ABH
Hair is a part of the body and so cutting it amounts to ABH.
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
S47 OAPA 1861
‘whosoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable…to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding 5 years.’
- – no mens rea is required for ABH. All that is required is the mens rea for the assault/battery.
Malicious Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm
OAPA 1861, s20
- ‘whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievious bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence…’
- 2 offences – malicious wounding and maliciously inflicting GBH
MR
- D must intend or be reckless as to the causing of the harm. Issue is the extent of the harm that must be intended.
C (a minor) v Eisenhower [1984]
OAPA 1861, S20
Malicious Wounding
Continuity of the whole skin must be broken – both layers.
If proof of wounding, injury need not be severe.
R v Wilson [1984]
OAPA 1861, S20
Inflicting GBH
GBH can be inflicted without an assault being committed.
R v Saunders [1985]
OAPA 1861, S20
Inflicting GBH
GBH is “serious harm”
R v Burstow [1985]
OAPA 1861, S20
Inflicting GBH
Psychological injury can constitute GBH
R v Bollom [2004]
OAPA 1861, S20
Inflicting GBH
Consider totality of injuries and effect on victim when considering GBH
R v Savage; Parmenter [1968]
OAPA 1861, s20
Mailciously Wounding or Inflicting GBH
When considering mens rea only have to foresee that some harm might result from actions via the intended or reckless orce.
Wounding or Causing GBH with Intent
OAPA 1861, s18
“whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent…to do some grievous bodily harm to any person…shall be guilty of an offence.”
AR - Same as for OAPA 1861, s20 - maliciosu wounding or inflicting GBH
MR
- Defendant must INTEND (R v Maloney) to cause harm which amounts to GBH. Recklessness is not enough.
- Where the actus reus is a wound, the mens rea is still intention to cause GBH. Intention to wound is not enough.
Compare S20 v S18 OAPA 1861
Administer noxious thing with intent to injure
OAPA 1861, S24
“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy such person, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years.”
AR
- Administering
- Poison, destructive, or noxious thing
MR
- Intention or reckless as to the administration
- Intention to injure, aggrieve or annoy
R v Kennedy [2007]
OAPA 1861, S24
Administer noxious thing with intent to injure
s24 creates 3 offences:
-
Direct administration
- Causing to be administered (requires discussion of factual and legal cause re the act that caused it to be administered)
- Causing to be taken ( ie self administration) requires discussion of factual and legal causation re the taking only and will usually spark a discussion on whether the taking was free deliberate and informed as per R v Kennedy
-
Direct administration
R v Gillard [1988]
OAPA 1861, S24
Administer noxious thing with intent to injure
Administering is causing entry to victim’s body in any way – can be spraying, hosing down as well
R v Marcus [2007]
OAPA 1861, S24
Administer noxious thing with intent to injure
- Poison, destructive or noxious thing – substance that is hurtful, unwholesome or objectionable, taking into account the nature of the substance and the quanity given.
Administer noxious thing with intent to cause GBH
OAPA 1861, s23
“whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.”
AR
- Administer - same as in S24
- Poison, destructive or noxious thing - must be inherently dangerous
- To endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm (requires discussion in fact and law on administered susbtance causing the serious injuries)
MR
- Intention or Reckless to the Administration
- Intention or Reckless as to the subtance being noxious
R v Cato [1976]
OAPA 1861, s23
Administer noxious thing with intent to cause GBH
For a substance to be classified as a noxious thing it must be inherently dangerous and liable to injure in common use
R v Cato [1976]
OAPA 1861, s23
Administer noxious thing with intent to cause GBH
Mens Rea
No requirement for prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to endanger life or cause GBH or was reckless to the endangerment of life or causing GBH.
(whoopsydoodle)