non-fatal offences cases Flashcards
R v Nelson (2013) significance
-assault
D has done something of a physical kind which causes someone to apprehend that they are about to be struck
R v Constanza (1997)
-assault
-shows it has to be an act
-good to use in evaluation
sum: D wrote 800 letters and V interpretated that last 2 letters as clear threats
sig: Words alone are sufficient.
upheld by CA, only need to prove a fear of violence at some time, not excluding the immediate future.
R v Ireland & Burstow (1997)
-assault
sum: silent phone calls amounted to assault
sig: held that physical proximity isn’t needed as immediate fear was placed when on phone. However house of lords said it depends on facts of a case as immediate fear alone is not alwauys sufficient.
R v Misalati
-assault
sum: D spat at V
sig: spitting can amount to an act causaing V to apprehend violence
Logdon v DPP (1976)
-assault
-apprehention/anticipation infliction of immediate, unawful force
sum: D pointed gun at woman and D told her it wasn’t real
sig: apprehention because she is being held at gun point so anticipated threat/violence which amounts to assault.
R v Lamb (1967)
-assault
-apprehention/anticipation infliction of immediate, unawful force
sum: D pointed unloaded gun at woman, woman knew gun wasn’t loaded.
sig: did not anticipate immediate force so isn’t assault
Smith v chief supt. of Woking Police Station (1983)
-assault
-immediate, unlawful force
sum: D went up to V’s window and didn’t move when she was distressed at seeing him
sig: changed immediate to imminent unlawful force
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
-assault
-words can amount to apprehention alone
sum: D put hand on pocket with sword during assize-time to scare V
sig: words negate violence, however as he did not have his sword in hand it was held not assault as the words didn’t indicate immediate violence
R v Light (1857)
-assault
-words can amount to apprehention alone
sum: raised sword above V’s head but said they wouldn’t do it due to policeman there
sig: links to Tuberville v Savage as words didn’t apprehend violence but actions did (raised swored over head)
Donnelly v Jackman (1970)
- Battery
sum: Policeman tapped D on shoulder to get attention but D then assaulted him and got charged
sig: implied consent existed in crowded placed where there was jostling, didn’t provide more force than reasonably necessary so can’t be battery
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
- Battery
sum: D took arm to prevent V leaving but D became violent and charged of assault but contended policemans actions amounted to battery
sig: implied consent to jostling exists but restraint is deemed unlawful force
Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008)
- Battery
sum: In a bar, police officer grabbed D’s arm and he struggled against restraint and another officer grabbed him. Charged wirh assaulting officers in execution of duty.
sig: restraint wasn’t in process of arrest (links to Collins v Wilcock) and not lawful force, D was entitled to struggle therefore not guilty of assault against police
R v Thomas (1985)
- Battery
- (key case)
sum: D was a caretaker at school and he grabbed hold of 12yr old girls skirt
sig: touching a persons clothes is equivalent to touching their body
Fagan v Met Police Commander (1968)
- battery
sum: D drove over police foot accidentally, when asked to move it he refused
sig: D argued he lacked mens rea at time of actus reus but then when he refused to move he gaines the mens rea- battery can be a continuing act
DPP v K (1990)
- Battery
- (key case)
sum: acid in hand drier by 15yr old boy, left it there to come back to later but V used handrier and got acid over face
sig: battery may be committed by an indirect act
R v Martin (1881)
- Battery
- (key case)
sum: D placed iron bar across door and turned off lights, in panic many people tried to escape but couldn’t so got injured
sig: battery may be committed bu an indirect act
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire (2000)
- Battery
sum: D punched mother causing child to fall out her arms and D was reckless as to whether actions would injure child
sig: battery may be an indirect act and transferred malice
DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003)
- Battery
sum: D had needles in pocket which stabbed police officer when she searched him, which he knew would happen
sig: Indirect act can be by omission, D didn’t state he had something in his pocket that would cause harm
DPP v Majewski (1976)
- Battery
sum: D committed series of assaults whilst under the influence of drugs & alcohol (3 countts of ABH & 3 counts of assault). He relied on intoxications as a defence, but appeal was dismissed.
sig: assault and battery charges intoxication is sufficient mens rea (recklessness is basic intent)
moriarity v Brooks (1834)
* GBH - wounding
* (key case)
sum: D punched landlord of pub, who got a cut under his that bled
sig: a break in the continuity of the whole skin
JCC v Eisenhower (1984)
* GBH - wounding
* (key case)
sum: D fired air pistol and pellet hit V in eye causing blood vessel to rupture
sig: not wounding as skin was not broken
R v Martin (1881)
- significance only
- GBH
no need for direct application, indirect is sufficient
R v Wilson (1984)
* GBH - inflicting
sum: motorist had an argument and puched pedestrian
sig: inflicting can be direct application of force or doing something which isn’t direct force that results in harm of V’s body
R v Burstow (1997)
- significance only
* GBH - wounding
inflict has same meaning as cause, doesn’t require a technical assault or battery
