Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

English Criminal Law > offences against a person > Flashcards

offences against a person Flashcards

(79 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

increasing harm

A

increasing sentence

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

s18 - wounding or causing GBH with intent

A

maximum - life

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

ss 47 and 20

A

both maximum 5 years sentence

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

GBH - structure of offences

A

seriously injures V with knife/other weapon, crown court, or magistrates court

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

GBH with intent/wounding with intent - structure of offences

A

D intentionally wounds or causes wounds to the V, can be resisting arrest, crown court.

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

Assault - Definition

A

intentionally or recklessly causing the apprehension of immediate unlawful personal violence, result crime, cannot assault yourself

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

s 39 of Criminal Justice Act 1988

A

assault

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

AR: unlawful personal violence

A

apprehension means subjective (to V) expectation or anticipation, not complete unless they suspect/think violence will follow.

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

r v ireland

A

assault, fear that the caller would arrive at their door at any time, where it is clear that the words used to communicate a violence it is enough

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

tuberville v savage

A

words can be enough for assault but if they communicate violence it’s not going to be used at that time

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

AR: Immediate

A

must be an imminent threat, V’s belief in the nature of the threat

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

Smith v CS of Woking Police Station

A

IMMEDIATE - wasn’t necessary to find out what V thought as long as she believed it was of some violent nature and carried out straight away

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

r v constanza

A

IMMEDIATE - took V evidence that his behaviour was escalating and anything could happen anytime, threat didn’t have to be directly in front to qualify

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

battery: definition

A

intentionally or recklessly causing unlawful personal conduct, completed assault, result crime, V must be another person

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

AR: unlawful personal contact

A

there is no minimum level of harm - any touching without consent will do, not complete until contact is made

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

Faulkner v Talbot

A

unlawful personal contact - law at the time provided that a boy under 16 couldn’t consent to the touching, unlawful contact made, doesn’t need to be harm caused to the V.

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

r v Thomas

A

convicted in Crown court, appeal accepted as wasn’t sexual, said it doesn’t matter is the V touched on skin or clothes, it is unlawful personal contact

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

Fagan v MPC - unlawful personal contact

A

caused indirectly - held to constitute indirect physical contact and could form one of these offences

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

DPP V K - unlawful personal contact

A

caused indirectly - not necessary for V to know their V, if they put it in intending to hurt someone, it is assault.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

r v Martin - unlawful personal contact

A

caused indirectly - crushed several people, conviction safe.

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

DPP v Santa-Bermudez - unlawful personal contact

A

can occur by omission - D convicted of ABH, successfully pleaded to Crown court, appealed the appeal, disagreed as he had created a dangerous situation.

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

MR for assault and battery

A

assault - intent or recklessness as to causing the apprehension, battery - intent or recklessness as to causing the unlawful contact.

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

R v Venna - assault and battery MR

A

could convict the D if they agreed that their use of force was reckless

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

s 47 OAPA 1861

A

assault occasioning actual bodily harm, liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding 5 years, must suffer actual bodily harm, is a more serious form of assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
r v miller - AR actual bodily harm
court considers whether the force used could lead to ABH, held that an injury to state of mind is within the criteria if ABH
26
Ireland and Burstow - psychiatric injury (ABH)
no physical injury but became clinically depressed, mental illness caused needs to be medically recognised
27
MR Constructive Liability
only requires MR of the base offence - no need to be able to foresee the more serious ABH level harm
28
R v Roberts - liability is built (constructed)
said he couldn't foresee her jumping out of the car, taking her jacket off (battery), jumping out (increasing ABH), liability could only be broken if something bizarre occurred to break the causal link.
29
R v savage - liability is built (constructed)
both convicted of GBH, couldn't foresee a greater harm occurring because of their actions.
30
s 20 wound or inflict GBH
maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm - term not exceeding 5 years.
31
two ways to breach s 20
wound with malice, inflict GBH with malice, can go to magistrates or Crown court.
32
wound or cause GBH with intent s 18
unlawfully and maliciously 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 arrest or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer.
33
s 18 - breach
wound, cause GBH, max sentence of life
34
wounding
need not be serious, involves merely breaking the skin (Moriarty), only applies if skin broken
35
GBH
just means serious, DPP v Smith - emphasised that bodily harm must be really serious. - need not be life threatening.
36
s 18 MR: Intent is Key
requires intent to do some GBH or intent to resist arrest or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer
37
R v Taylor
intent must be to cause GBH, NOT wounding - D stabbed in the back no intent to cause GBH, jury convicted but appealed successfully.
38
s 20 - recklessness as 'some harm'
even if only minor, r v mowatt = unnecessary that the unlawful act would cause physical harm of the degree stated in s 20, r v savage = no need for D to foresee harm
38
ss 18 20 MR: Malice
means intent or recklessness, but not technically identical - applies to wounding/GBH s 20 offence - applies to wounding/GBH in s18 offence where D hindering arrest
39
foresight of GBH needed for s 18
r v Morrison = v tasked with evicting squatter, when trying to arrest began to run to the window, continued to run and gave V scarring, convicted of GBH, appealed, recklessness, must be a level of foresight as to relevant harm to V
40
s 28 crime and disorder act 1998 - aggravated offences (racial or religious aggravation)
- if, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before, the offender demonstrate towards V hostility based on membership (or presumed) of racial/religious group or - the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial/religious group based on their membership in said group
41
when is aggravation applicable?
after the offence has been proved - if a person is convicted, it increases the level of punishment BOLT ON which alters the offence and increases the sentence.
42
s 28(1)(a) - aggravates on behalf of AR
offender demonstrates hostility towards V
43
s 28(1)(b) aggravates on basis of MR
offence is motivated, were motivated by hostility
44
aggravation in AR - s 28(1)(a)
operates regardless of D's MR - demonstration is enough, whether they show racial hatred - requires it as base offence
45
r v Babbs
aggravation in AR s 28(1)(a) - D racially abused V, fight broke out, stopped by staff, convicted of racially aggravated assault, prior conduct racially motivated hostility, assault was the continuation
46
aggravation in MR: s 28(1)(b)
what D was thinking at the time of the interaction, in part must be shown, D needs to be motivated by racial/religious hostility, doesn't need to be only motivation
47
Kendall v DPP - aggravation in MR: s 28(1)(b) doesn't need to be sole motivation
put up posters of illegal immigrants and insulted them, encouraged people to join hate group, appeal rejected as he used the word 'scum' and pictures were offensive, partially motivate by racial insecurity
48
factors about racially/religious motivated abuse
V actual religion/race is irrelevant, D and V can be from the same group, V doesn't need to be aware of the hostility, assess D's conduct objectively
49
is domestic violence/abuse an offence?
no it is not in English criminal law, domestic abuse act 2021 provides a definition for it.
50
how to categorise Domestic Abuse
it takes another offence to prosecute if someone has experienced domestic abuse: assault, battery, homicide etc.
51
controlling or coercive behaviour - serious crime act 2015, s 76
(a) repeatedly/continuously engages in behaviour towards another (V) that is controlling/coercive (b) at the time of the behaviour, V and D are personally connected (c) the behaviour has a serous effect on V and (d) D knows, or ought to know, that the behaviour will have serious effect on V.
52
'personally connected' - for reference to s 76 of SCA 2015
covers a range of possible intimate partner relationships, s 76(2) - where there is an intimate relationship
53
'serious effect' - for reference to s 76 of SCA 2015
repeated fear of violence, serious alarm, distress, spying, having substantially adverse effect on V's everyday activities, effect D has on V
54
defence in s 76(8) for reference to s 76 of SCA 2015
where D acting in V's best interest, conduct was reasonable - D must show, burden of proof on them
55
defence of consent relating to controlling/coercive behaviour
can consent to minor harm in some circumstances
56
consent - common law offences
must be expressed or implied to D, consent must be effective (capacity, freedom, sufficient information).
57
chastising children - consent?
permissible as long as its reasonable, proportionate and without cruelty - children act 20014, s 58 defence available only to parents
58
expressed consent
agrees to contact - provided express agreement for the contact.
59
implied consent (important issue for assault and battery)
generally implied consent to low level contact in society - Collins v wilcock = everyday life.
60
wood v dpp (implied consent - must be within the bounds of acceptability)
took D's arms so they could confirm identity, D hit the officer, they had no lawful reason to touch D unless they were arresting, seen that they were assaulting and his reaction was lawful
61
h v cps (implied consent - must be within the bounds of acceptability)
foresight of contact not enough - worked at school for those with learning needs, he consent to being assaulted as every common there, argument not upheld, if teacher consented to being attacked by pupil then should've applied to everyone entering
62
effective consent - V must have capacity
Burrell v harmer - D charged with ABH, argument rejected as boys were too young to give consent and understand it - lacked capacity
63
effective consent - V must have capacity = Mental Capacity Act 2005
guidance if someone has capacity to make decisions
64
effective consent - v must have knowledge
can't consent to something if you are not aware of the risk of it - need to clearly understand conduct
65
effective consent - v must have knowledge = R v Konzani
D convicted of ABH, had sex with people knowing he had STD, court found V gave consent to unprotected sex but not to the HIV as they didn't know
66
effective consent - v must not be V of fraud
fraud can only be to identity of D or nature of D's conduct, V must not be victim of duress, D's honest belief in consent negates liability
67
effective consent - v must not be V of fraud = R v Richardson
D was not a dentist, convicted of ABH, didn't say license suspended, allowed appeal, only applied if they were misled to who she was
68
effective consent - v must not be V of fraud = R v Melin
D was not a doctor, GBH, alleged medically trained but not, they said they wouldn't have got procedure if they knew, conviction stood
69
effective consent - v must not be V of fraud = r v mobilio
d performed unnecessary vaginal exams on women for own pleasure, said they consented, told the women what he was going to do, consented, seen to be 'good' in that sense.
70
effective consent - v must not be V of fraud = r v jones
schoolboys, threw in the air intending to catch, didn't, sustained serious injuries, didn't allow consent offence to go to jury, believed enough for defence charge
71
consent statutory offences
express/implied, effective, but for ABH/GBH need the harm to be legally recognised as capable of being consented to
72
categories of serious harm - r v brown
surgery and medical treatment, cosmetic surgery/body mod, religious flagellation, horseplay, sports, sexual pleasure, unless the harm falls into one of these categories, D will not be consent
73
surgery and medical treatment - consent to serious harm
can be invasive, breaking skin, wounding, need consent to that treatment
74
body mod - consent to serious harm
- r v wilson = branding, D had his initials put onto wife's bum, convicted of ABH - r v bm = professional tattooed and piercer, removed clients ear and split tongue, clients accepted to have tried to consent, should have been seen as an extension to tattoo, no consent found
75
horseplay - consent to serious harm
- validity of consent = R v Jones - r v aitken = raf airman, one get doused in spirit and on fire, ABH charge, overturned, believe it was fun, and V was consenting
76
serious harm in sports
risk of injury, consent in officially recognised sport played within rules, injuries sustained outside of rules not consented to
77
r v barnes - serious harm in sports
D caused serious leg injury to another due to bad tackle, convicted of GBH, doesn't mean act was criminal
78
serious harm for sexual pleasure
- r v dica = STD - r v Donovan = SM, light spanking - R v Brown = consensual SM - r v wilson = branding wife's bum

English Criminal Law (6 decks)

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