Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

A2 Law > Non-fatals > Flashcards

Non-fatals Flashcards

(62 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Define non-fatals offences

A

Physical offences that haven’t caused death

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

What Act are non-fatals defined under?

A

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

But assault + battery (minor offences) are defined under common law

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

Are the offences clear cut?

A

No

They tend to overlap a great deal

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

What is the AR of assault?

A

Act where D causes V to apprehend immediate application of unlawful force

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

What does the word ‘apprehend’ mean in the AR of assault?

A

Doesn’t mean fear

V only has to believe that the D is about to apply some unlawful force

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

For assault does the threat have to be immediate?

What case illustrates this?

A

Yes
Threat future force = not be an assault

Smith v Chief Superintendant of Working Police Station (1983)

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

Smith v Chief Superintendant of Working Police Station (1983)

A

D standing in V’s garden at around 11pm
Looking at her getting ready for bed in her ground-floor flat
Defence argues = no immediacy of threat
Court held that as far as she was concerned, threat = immediate

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

Can words amount to assault?

A

Yes

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

R v Ireland (1997)

A

D made silent phone calls to 3 women
HL held to be sufficient to cause V apprehend immediate infliction of unlawful force
Amount to assault

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

What case illustrates the words can negate an assault?

A

Tuberville v Savage (1669)
D put hand on sword
Said ‘if not assize time I would not take such language from you’
Saying he = NOT going to do anything; Cts in town
Therefore no assault

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

What does the word ‘force’ mean in the AR for assault?

A

Doesn’t mean violence
Any touching can be an assault
R v Thomas

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

What is the MR for assault?

A

Intention or recklessness to perform the AR

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

What is the AR for battery?

A

D actually applies unlawful force to V
Any unlawful contact can = battery (Thomas)
No need to prove harm/ physical pain

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

R v Thomas (1985)

A

D was charged with battery

Found NG but = stated that even touching a woman’s skirt could be a battery

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

For battery, does the force have to be applied directly?

Name 2 cases that illustrate this point

A

No, the force can be applied indirectly.

R v Martin (1881)
R v Haystead (2000)

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

R v Martin (1881)

A

D put iron bar against doors of theatre
Put out the lights + shouted fire
Actually convicted of GBH (some people were seriously injured)
Ct said he committed battery, even though he had not directly applied force

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

R v Haystead (2000)

A

Man punched a woman holding small child
She dropped baby as a result of punch
He = convicted of battery even though he had no direct contact with the child

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

What was said in the case of R v Pringle in relation to battery?

A

It was said that the application of force should be hostile

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

What are 7 examples of battery under the CPS charging standards?

A
  1. Grazing
  2. Scratches
  3. Abrasions
  4. Minor bruising
  5. Swelling
  6. Reddening of skin
  7. Black eye
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is the MR of battery?

A

D intends/ is reckless as application of force

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

Which case confirmed the MR of battery?

A

R v Venna (1976)

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

What is the maximum sentence for s47 ABH and s20 GBH?

A

5 years

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What court can an ABH case be heard in?

A

= Triable either way offence

Heard in Mag Ct/ Crown Ct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What is the AR for ABH?

A

Has to be an assault/ battery occasioning ABH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
What does the word 'occasioning' mean in the AR for ABH?
Causing
26
What did the Ct say in the case of Miller (1954) about ABH?
Ct stated: ABH includes hurt/ injury calculated to interfere with health/ comfort of V
27
What did Lord Hobhouse say in the case of R v Chan-Fook (1994) in relation to the AR of ABH?
Word 'actual' indicated injury doesn't have to be permanent | But shouldn't be "so trivial as to be wholly insignificant"
28
Does cutting someones hair amount to ABH?
Yes - DPP v Smith | D cut ex-girlfriends hair without her consent, held to be ABH
29
Which case established that psychological harm can amount ABH?
Case of Chan-fook | Ct: have to be clinically recognised condition for ABH to apply - not just emotions such as fear/ panic
30
Give 6 examples of ABH under the CPS charging standards
1. Loss or breaking of teeth 2. Loss of consciousness 3. Extensive/ multiple bruising 4. Minor fractures 5. Minor cuts (might need stitching) 6. Psychiatric injury
31
What is the MR for ABH?
Same for assault + battery | D doesn't have to be aware = any risk of harm
32
Name 2 cases that illustrate the MR for ABH
R v Roberts (1978) | R v Savage (1992)
33
R v Roberts (1978)
D convicted of ABH Made sexual advances towards girl in his car Leading her jump out + she = injured D argued he didn't intend/ foresee any risk of her being caused harm Argument failed - had MR for battery = enough
34
R v Savage (1992)
D = in her local pub Saw husband's new girlfriend friends D went to table + threw a pint over her head Glass slipped + cut the woman' wrist Ct: D didn't need to be aware of risk that she might cause harm She DID intend to apply unlawful force + that = enough for s47 conviction
35
What did the courts say in the case of R v Savage (1992)?
D didn't need to be aware of risk that she might cause harm | She DID intend to apply unlawful force + that = enough for s47 conviction
36
What is the difference between s20 + s18?
s20 has a lower level of MR
37
What does the prosecution need to prove for a D to be convicted under s20? (AR)
That D either wounded V /inflicted GBH | Need to make sure that the D is charged correctly
38
Define wounding
Breaking surface of skin Minor cut = still be a wound Internal bleeding = not
39
What is the AR for wounding?
Breaking the surface of the skin
40
Does internal bleeding count as wounding?
No Surface of skin = not been broken Therefore cannot be wound
41
What case demonstrates the AR of wounding?
Wood (1830) D broke V's collar bone But skin = still intact Couldn't be G of wounding
42
Wood (1830)
D broke V's collar bone But skin = still intact Couldn't be G of wounding
43
Define GBH | What case was this established in?
DPP v Smith (1961) | Held to mean 'really serious harm'
44
What do the Cts need to consider about the V when convicting someone of GBH?
Need to take into account characteristics of V (age + health) Means that harm only has to be serious for them R v Bollom (2003)
45
What case demonstrates the fact that the GBH inflicted only has to be serious for them?
R v Bollom (2003)
46
R v Bollom (2003)
V = 17 month old child Suffered bruising + abrasions to her body, arm + legs Court ruled that this = GBH taking into account age + fragility
47
Can biological harm be GBH? | What case demonstrates this?
Yes Can be accepted as GBH R v Dica (2004) [HIV]
48
R v Dica (2004)
D infected 2 women with HIV Had unprotected sex with them knowing he = HIV +ve He didn't tell them
49
What does 'inflict' in the AR for s20 GBH suggest?
It used to be thought that there had to be a direct application of force
50
Under s20, does the application of force have to be direct? | What case illustrates this?
No R v Burstow (1997) made clear that this = not necessary 'Inflict' means same as cause If D's action have lead to consequences that V suffered GBH = enough
51
R v Burstow (1997)
D = obsessed with woman at work Over several months Stalked, damaged her car harassed her including silent phone calls + stealing her underwear As result, she suffered severe depression D conviction GBH = upheld by HL
52
Give 6 examples of s20 CPS charging standards
1. Compound fractures 2. Psychiatric injury 3. Injuries - lengthy treatment/ incapacity 4. Injuries - substantial loss of blood, 5. Injury - permanent disability, 6. Injury - disfigurement, displaced limbs/ bones
53
What is the MR of s20 GBH?
D must intend to cause some harm/ be subjectively reckless (s)he must be aware of risk of harm NOT NECESSARILY SERIOUS
54
What case confirmed the principle set in R v Cunningham (1957)?
R v Parmenter (1991)
55
What was the word used in the act for the MR of GBH?
'maliciously' R v Cunningham (1957) Held to just mean intention
56
R v Parmenter (1991)
``` D threw 3 month old baby in air + caught him Causing serious injuries to baby's legs D didn't realise this might cause injury D conviction = quashed BUT he found G under s47 ```
57
R v Grimshaw (1984)
D heard someone insult her boyfriend in pub D pushed glass she was holding into his face G of GBH - had foreseen risk of some harm Even though harm actually caused = more serious than she had considered
58
What is s18 OAPA?
Wounding/ causing GBH with intent
59
What is the AR for s18?
Same as s20
60
What is the MR for s18?
Requires intention to be proven | Prosecution must prove D intends to cause serious harm
61
Is recklessness sufficient for the MR of s18?
No Prosecution must prove D directly intended to cause serious harm/ if harm was virtually certain as a result of the D's actions R v Nedrick (1986)
62
What did the jury decide in R v Nedrick (1986) in relation to the MR of s18?
D intended to cause V harm | Due to fact that it was virtually certain that it would occur as a result of the D's actions

A2 Law (18 decks)

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