Non-Sexual Non Fatal Offences

Question 1

crimes against autonomy vs crimes of violence

Answer 1

Crimes Against Autonomy
Each wrongdoing is an interference of a person’s autonomy or control over their own body
Proof of physical harm is not an essential element
(Only threat R v Savage)
Proof of lack of consent is an essential element
V’s reaction should be forseen
Intent to use force
Eg. Assault, Battery, Rape, False Imprisonment

Crimes of Violence
Each wrongdoing is the cause of physical harm to the other
Proof of physical harm is an essential element
Proof of lack of consent is not an essential element
V’s reaction is not not necessary to be forseen by D(R v Savage)
Intent to cause harm
Eg. ABH ,GBH

Question 2

common asault apprehending

Answer 2

1. Apprehending (Mental Element – Fear of Force)
   • R v Ireland
     ➤ Silent phone calls; subjective fear is sufficient
     ➤ No need for physical presence or spoken threats
     “even if there is no objective prospect of unlawful harm, the victims subjective fear counts”-
   • Smith v Superintendent of Woking
     ➤ Peeping Tom case; V feared immediate force even through window
     ➤ Apprehension > contact (Can be Psychic Injury)

Question 2

assault and battery relationship

Answer 2

• assault and battery are two distinct offences, not automatically“lesser included” alternative verdict to battery charges if physical contact is not established. You must prove the specific act elements for each. (Nelson)

Question 2

mens rea common assault

Answer 2

• Mens ReaIntending the definition effects unless:
  1. recklessness - R v Cunningham
  2. V’s reaction were not forseen - Spratt
  3. Inflicts force with reasonable belief of consent - R v Lau Shing
  4. inflicts force with intention of self defence - R v Williams

Question 2

common assault immediacy

Answer 2

2. Immediacy (Temporal Element – When Force Is Expected)> Focus: Was the threat of force imminent?
   • Thomas v National Union
     ➤ The threat must be of immediate force (although later clarified in Ireland and Constanza that immediacy ≠ instant)
   • R v Constanza
     ➤ “Immediate” includes violence that could happen soon; doesn’t need to be instantaneous - “fear of violence at some time not excluding the immediate future”

PLUS
- R v Burstow ➤ Words alone can indicate imminent unlawful force

Question 2

common assault definition

Answer 2

1. A person is guilty of assault if he intentionally or recklessly leads someone to believe to expect the non-consensual application to his body of immediate, unlawful force. (CJA)
2. Reducible not to the fact of contact but the threat of it. (R v Savage)

Question 2

common assault actus reus flow

Answer 2

Apprehending → Immediacy → Unlawful Act

Question 3

common assault unlawfulness of act threatened

Answer 3

3. Unlawful Act (Illegality of Threatened Force)

Focus: Was the threatened force unlawful (i.e., not justified or excused)?

Threats, Gestures, Words, or Psychic Injury(Smith v Superintendent of Woking (Peeping Tom Case)

- **R v Burstow (words are enough)**
    ➤ word are enough for imminent danger

- **Read v Coker (words (ultimatums) affirm)**
    ➤ Ultimatums are also a form of assault or threat and add to verbal part not reduce - Verbal threats of unlawful force unless justified
    
- **Tuberville v Savage (words negate)**
    ➤ Words can negate unlawful intent (i.e., “I’m not going to attack you right now” = not unlawful)

Question 4

battery definition

Answer 4

Unlawful force has been applied intentionally or recklessly to the body of the victim without his consent (R v Savage)

Question 5

battery mens rea

Answer 5

Mens Rea

Act by which a person intentionally or recklessly inflicts non-consensual unlawful force upon an individual. (R v Venna)

• Common assault to GBH to avoid trial by indictment and proof of inflicting harm
• Constituted as an offence solely for the vindication of personal autonomy - R v Kenny

Question 6

battery actus reus

Answer 6

Actus Reus

no harm proof required dpp v smith
no direct contact required r v haystead
cant be by omission fagan v mpc
clothes r v ashworth

Force - Scope:
1. Doesnt need to be GBH or painful harm. eg. cutting hair - DPP v Smith
2. There need not be direct contact between assailant and the victim- by A’s act B suffered application of force to body without breaking chain of causation - R v Haystead
3. Battery cannot be committed by omission unless it’s a continuing act - Fagan v MPC (Alternate to battery by omission - willful neglect)
4. Clothes are counted if wearing - R v Ashworth

Question 7

abh s.47 actus reus

Answer 7

Actus Reus

common assault + ABH + causal connect (explain with Savage 1992 (A, intending to throw beer at V, accidentally lets go of the glass (causing), which hits (battery) and cuts C (actual bodily harm)))

1. Common Assault (assault or battery)battery straightforwardfrom assault - eg. Ireland [1998] Silent phone calls = assault → psychiatric injury = ABH
2. Actual Bodily Harmany hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. such injury need not be permanent but must be more than transient or trifling (Donavan)Scope:
   1. Cutting hair is counted (DPP v Smith) (but usually minor cuts and bruises are under common assault)
   2. Can be psychiatric injury
      
      1. Injury must be medically recognised psychiatric condition (R v Chang-Fook)
      2. If severe psychiatric problem- s.20
3. Causal Connection between Assault and Harm“The verdict of assault occasioning actual bodily harm may be returned upon proof of an assault together with proof of the fact that actual bodily harm was occasioned by the assault” - Savage 1992

Question 8

s.47 abh mens rea

Answer 8

Mens Rea

• Intention to inflict harm (threat or force) - doesn’t need foreseeing injury - (Roberts)s.47 ABH needs:
  1. ✅ Actus reus of common assault (i.e., either assault or battery)
  2. ✅ Mens rea of THAT assault or battery
  3. ❌ But NOT foresight of the actual bodily harm
  eg. Provingculpabilityrequires proof of foresight, provingcausedoes not. Again, inSavage, where V was injured by a beer glass, the offence was made out upon proof that D intended to throw beer at V. It was not necessary to show further any foresight that the beer glass might slip from her grasp and cause the resulting cut.

Question 9

actus reus s.20 gbh malicious wounding overview

Answer 9

Actus Reus

The actus reus is not common assault + GBH, Simply ➡️ A wound/grievous bodily harm AND a causal link to D’s conduct

Malicous Wounding
McLoughlin

GBH
Bollom
Context matters — Thin Skull Rule Take Victim as is
HIV (Dica)
serious psychiatric injury (Burstow).

Causal Link
- Inflicting v Causing - now the same - In this case Burstow , D had stalked his victim over a long period of time silent calls. Dica - There was no requirement that the harm be delivered by any unlawful force, as

Question 10

actus reus s.20 gbh and malicious wounfing

Answer 10

Malicous Wounding

1. Wounding shows externally - requires penetration of both layers of skin - McLoughlin

GBH

1. Whether an injury counts as ‘really serious’ or ‘serious’ is a question of fact for the jury. InBollom[2003] EWCA Crim 2846, the Court of Appeal said that, in deciding whether harm was serious or not, the jury should take into account the age and state of physical fitness of the victim, as well as the extent and nature of the injury —- Context matters — Thin Skull Rule Take Victim as is
2. Grievous bodily harm also includes sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV (Dica)
3. and serious psychiatric injury (Burstow).

Question 11

s.20 gbh causal link

Answer 11

Causal Link (R v Burstow)

• Inflicting v Causing - now the same - In this case Burstow , D had stalked his victim over a long period of time silent calls. V suffered serious clinical depression. The House of Lords held that serious depression counted as grievous bodily harm. Dica - There was no requirement that the harm be delivered by any unlawful force, asClarencehad supposed. To inflict harm means simply to cause it, which D had done.
• Grey Area - Miller says Omission liability exists if D creates the danger, s.20 Actus Reus Must “inflict” GBH — traditionally through acts, but Burstow expanded this to “cause” - It’s not settled whether a pure omission, without prior dangerous act, can satisfy s.20 - or duty to act

Question 12

s.20 gbh mens rea

Answer 12

Mens Rea R v Mowatt

• “Maliciously” = either: Intention to cause some harm, or Recklessness as to some harm (not necessarily GBH or forseen GBH ) Mowatt

Question 13

gbh with intent s.18 mens rea

Answer 13

Mens Rea R v Taylor

Specific intent to cause GBH, or to resist/prevent arrest unlike s.20 (Intention or recklessness as to some harm (Mowatt)) if the inflicting GBH was done on purpose.

unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent (arrest) (R v Taylor)

1. Mens Rea of ulterior motive- the intention must not merely correspond with the physical act but must go further — specifically, an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, not simply to wound or harm. (R v Cunningham)

Question 14

general rule of consent OAPA

Answer 14

R v Donavan

> “The intentional causing of physical injury is considered inherently unlawful… consent cannot render it lawful.” –

• There’s a fundamental distinction between:
  
  • ✅ Crimes against autonomy (where consent can be a defence)
    
    • Consent can negate the unlawfulness of an assault or battery.
  • ❌ Crimes of violence (where consent is usually not a defence)
    
    • But not all harms can be consented to — especially where actual bodily harm (ABH) or greater is inflicted.

Question 15

consent must be feee informed and in capacity authority

Answer 15

1. Consent must be freely given:
   
   • Reluctant acquiescence ≠ consent – R v Olugboja
   • Submission due to desperation ≠ consent – R v Kirk
     r v ali and ashraf
2. Consent must be informed
   
   • Tabassum (”Consent vitiated by deception as to nature or purpose”)
   • R v Konzani - Disease transmission – consent valid if V knows D is infected
     r v dica r v assange
3. The person must have capacity
   
   • Burrell v Harmer (young boys couldn’t validly consent to tattoos)

Question 16

public interest exceptions to consent

Answer 16

Consent is not a defence to ABH or GBH, unless the activity is in the public interest, e.g.:

| Surgery | Public interest implied |

Tattooing | Burrell v Harmer(also boy no capacity) |
| Branding between spouses | Wilson |
| Contact sports (in public interest) | Barnes (consent is valid unless injury is deliberate) |
| Horseplay | Jones (consent may be valid for accidental injuries but not for intended ones) |

Question 17

cases where public interest doesn’t matter in consent

Answer 17

4. Public Interest Not Applied

> “It is not in the public interest that people should try to cause, or should cause, each other actual bodily harm for no good reason.” – A-G’s Reference (No.6 of 1980)

1. Rough Sex

*Brown*, *Emmett* – consent invalid (because deliberate and not in public interest)

- **R v Brown**: sadomasochistic group acts – consent was **not valid** due to **lack of public interest**

- **R v Emmett**: harm caused during rough sexual activity – **consent not valid**

2. Greater Bodily Modifications
   
   • R v BM: removing ear etc. not seen in public interest ie Wilson principle not extended beyond tattooing.

Question 18

r v slingsby

Answer 18

how consent may eliminate criminal fault case

Consent was valid → No battery

Injury was accidental & not deliberate → No intent to harm → Brown (Rough Sex Public Interest) doesn’t apply → No s.20 GBH

Harm was not foreseen or risked → no recklessness → no s.20 reckless GBH → No reckless manslaughter

No battery and no s.20 GBH → No unlawful act → no unlawful act manslaughter

• This shows that consent may eliminate criminal liability entirely