non fatal offences agaisnt the person

Question 1

common assault and battery

Answer 1

Common assault: Ireland; Burstow [1998]:
“an assault is any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence”

Battery: Faulkner v Talbot [1981]- ⁠indecent assault
  “An intentional [or reckless] touching of another person without the consent of that person and    without lawful excuse.”

Question 2

assault actus reus

Answer 2

Apprehension of personal violence. (touching)

A focus on V, not D – V must “apprehend” violence.- ⁠does not focus on what the D is doing

to prove assult - the victim must apprehend and perceive immediate violence

Immediacy: expansive approach (related to harassment before Protection from Harassment Act 1997?). - however has been expanded to accomodate a gap in the law for contanza

Constanza [1997]: culmination of stalking, two letters 8 days apart did amount to assault. - some point in the future, not necessarily immediately (now ish)

Ireland; Burstow [1994]: Words alone can constitute assault and silent phone calls can constitute assault.- silent phone calls as a case of stalking - can count as apprehension of immediate violence

Question 3

battery actus reus

Answer 3

• inflicting personal violence
• does not require prior common assault.- no apprehension
  -must be an act.- not mere obstruction
  -can be committed by omission

Question 4

assault and battery mens rea

Answer 4

Intentionally or recklessly: Venna [1976] (battery, but accepted applies to assault).

Assault: intention/recklessness as to causing V’s apprehension of immediate violence.

Battery: intention/recklessness as to application of force to V’s body.

Question 5

OAPA 1861 s.18

Answer 5

wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm

Question 6

OAPA s.20

Answer 6

inflicting bodily injury (constructive liability offence)

Question 7

s. 47

Answer 7

assault occasioning actual bodily harm

Question 8

wounding

Answer 8

Wounding - breach of whole of the skin - Morriarty v Books

Question 9

Bodily harm

Answer 9

“bodily harm” means physical harm, and includes
Disease: Dica [2005] (reckless transmission of HIV) infection with viruses
recognised psychiatric conditions, on the basis that they affect the central nervous system - on a molecular level : Ireland; Burstow [1994] but …
Not other psychological symptoms or emotions: Ireland; Burstow, and R v D [2006].
Non-obviously, cutting hair: DPP v Smith [2006]- violently hostile act ; being unconscious: R (T) v DPP [2003]- fleeting unconsciousness also count

Question 10

everyday touching

Answer 10

The law assumes implied consent: Collins v Wilcock
Actual non-consent displaces implied consent: Marland v DPP [2023].
But it appears must be expressed: McMillan v CPS [2008].

Question 11

Consent and assault: the exceptional categories

Answer 11

(some, organised) sport
rough horseplay;- ⁠
surgery and other medical interventions;
(some) body modifications: tattooing, piercing, branding one’s partner’s buttocks … But not as in R v BM [2018]
(some) religious practises: male circumcision, flagellation;
risk of sexually transmitted diseases.- ⁠ Konzani [2005] -

Question 12

consent and assault

Answer 12

for consent to negate liability:
Must be informed: Konzani [2005];

Must be by someone with the capacity to consent: MB (An Adult) (Medical Treatment) [1997],-

Not be vitiated by fraud: R v Tabassum [2000]

Or by duress: R v Nichol (1807).