Offences Against the Person Flashcards
(60 cards)
1
Q
Fagan v MPC [1969]
A
- D was told by a police constable to back up his car but unintentionally drove onto the constable’s foot
- When V told him to drive off his foot, D turned off the ignition of his car instead
- D was convicted of assault on a constable
- issue was that he didn’t have mens rea initially -> D is guilty if the MR arises later, whilst the AR is still ongoing
- provided the definition for assault:
-> where D “intentionally, or possibly recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence” - assault cannot be caused by omission
- indirect force used -> car
2
Q
R v Williams (1984)
A
- definition of battery: “an act by which the defendant, intentionally or recklessly, applies unlawful force to the complainant”
3
Q
R v Ireland [1998]
A
- a silent caller -> would heavy breathe
- may be imminent -> sufficiently immediate
- held in the affirmative that silence causing psychiatric injury could constitute assault occasioning ABH under s.47 OAPA 1861
4
Q
R v Constanza [1997]
A
- D held campaign of hate against ex-colleague -> 800 letters
- no difference between spoken or written word
- at some point not excluding the immediate future (he had followed her home)
- words are enough to cause abh
5
Q
DPP v Santana- Bermudez [2003]
A
- D denied having anything sharp during police search -> officer was stabbed by needle
- Actus reus for assault can include omission where D exposed the victim to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury through his acts or speech, and that force does not have to be applied by D directly
- D convicted of abh
6
Q
R v Lamb [1967]
A
- two guys playing around with guns
- V never realised that the gun was loaded -> no apprehension so no assault
- reasonable mistake vitiates consent
7
Q
Logdon v DPP [1976]
A
- doesn’t matter if D is able to carry out the threat (fake gun)
- V’s response (apprehension of violence) is what’s important
8
Q
Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station [1983]
A
- D stared at V through her home window having entered her garden
- doesn’t matter if V doesn’t know what D will do next
- considered sufficiently immediate -> outside her house
9
Q
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
A
- made it clear through his words that he wouldn’t currently do anything because it was assize-time
- no intention
- no immediacy
10
Q
R v Venna [1976]
A
- D resisted arrest violently -> police officer fractured a hand
- “we see no reason in logic or in law why a person who recklessly applies physical force to the person of another should be outside the criminal law of assault.”
- upheld and approved definition of assault in Fagan
11
Q
Collins v Wilcock [1984]
A
- there is a daily implied consent about touching which is necessary in daily life -> generally acceptable physical contact
- BUT here police officer grabbing D’s arm, whom D then scratched, went beyond what is impliedly consent
- D’s conviction was quashed
- “a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person”
- any touching, however slight, may amount to a battery
12
Q
DPP v K [1990]
A
- placed acid in hand dryer
- indirect force applied
13
Q
Faulkner v Talbot [1981]
A
- the force used doesn’t need to be hostile, rude or aggressive -> can be the slightest touch
14
Q
DPP v Taylor; DPP v Little [1992]
A
- assault and battery are treated in the statute as separate offences. They have always been separate offences
- held that they are statutory offences
15
Q
R(Ward) v Black Country Magistrates Court [2020]
A
- held that assault and battery are statutory offences
16
Q
R v Roberts (1972)
A
- ordinary rules of causation apply
17
Q
R v Miller [1954]
A
actual bodily harm = “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the V”
18
Q
R v Brown [1994]
A
- personal violence: sado-masochism
- every person’s body is inviolate and assault doesn’t need to be serious
- consent cannot protect from s.47 and s.20
- abh = “such hurt or injury need not permanent , but must, no doubt be more than merely transient and trifling”.
19
Q
R v Chan-Fook (1994)
A
- “….the phrase ABH is capable of including psychiatric harm. But it does not include mere emotions such as fear or distress nor panic nor does it include, as such, states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition.”
20
Q
R v Dhaliwal [2006]
A
abh = mere psychological harm is not enough, psychiatric injury is needed
21
Q
R (on the application of T) v DPP [2003]
A
- abh = can include loss of consciousness
- victim had been headbutted & punched & kicked – whole attack caused him facial injuries
- the kick specifically, attributed to defendant, led to unconsciousness
- the court held that this did qualify as ABH
22
Q
DPP v Smith [2006]
A
abh = cutting off someone’s hair counts (no pain is needed)
23
Q
R v Savage, R v Parmenter [1992]
A
- upheld and approved definition of assault in Fagan
- Just need to show intention or recklessness as to an assault or battery
24
Q
C (a minor) v Eisenhower [1984]
A
s.20 = wound -> “There must be a break in the continuity of the skin. It must be a break in the continuity of the whole skin….”
- no break in the skin caused -> rupture of blood vessels themselves is not a wound -> no s,20
25
Moriarty v Brookes (1834)
- s.20 wound -> not just a scratch -> break in the whole skin
26
R v Martin [1881]
- indirect force used -> placed iron bar at door and caused panic
27
R v Burstow [1998]
s.20 -> inflict gbh -> "in the context of the Act of 1861 there is no radical divergence between the meaning of the two words -> inflict and cause
28
R v Brady [2006]
can cause or inflict GBH just by deliberate non-accidental conduct that causes (in the factual & legal sense) GBH.
s.20 -> intent / recklessness -> Does not need to be directed at anyone in particular & does not need to be an “obvious and serious” risk
29
DPP v Smith [1961]
s.20 gbh -> grevious -> “Grievous” means no more and no less than really serious”
## Footnote
but see janjua
30
R v Janjua [1999]
- a matter for judge to decide when to use 'really' before 'serious bodily harm'
31
R v Grundy [1997]
Jury can take into account the totality of the injuries
32
R v Bollom [2004]
- s.20 gbh -> Also take into account the characteristics of the V
- The victim’s characteristics, including his age, must be considered in deciding whether the harm caused constitutes actual bodily harm
33
R v Meachen [2009]
s.20 - gbh - Injuries do not need to cause great pain
34
R v Saunders [1985]
s.20 gbh -> don't need great pain -> broken nose
35
R v Hicks [2007]
s.20 gbh -> don't need great pain -> loss of consciousness
36
R v Dica [2004]
s.20 gbh -> don't need great pain -> HIV
-> can only consent to std if you are informed that it is a possibility -> otherwise no consent and unlawful
37
R v Golding [2014]
s.20 gbh -> don't need great pain -> genital herpes
38
R v Mowatt [1968]
s.20 -> intent or recklessness as to harm
- unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section -> BUT needs to have foreseen some harm
39
R v Rushworth (1992)
40
R v Cunningham [1957]
meaning of ‘maliciously’, the ‘accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and has gone on to take the risk’;
41
R v G & R [2004]
overrules Caldwell for recklessness test
42
R v Bryson [1985]
s.18 -> Recklessness is not enough, must be intention
43
R v Taylor [2009]
s.18 -> intent to wound is not enough -> must be intent for gbh
44
R v Morrison (1989)
when resisting lawful arrest - s.18
◦ Here the word ‘maliciously’ = reckless as to the GBH
◦ So need to show that D was
▪ Reckless as to the GBH AND
▪ Intended to resist arrest / prevent lawful apprehension
45
R v Lahaye [2004]
can have alternate verdicts
46
AG’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980) [1981]
“It is not in the public interest that people should try to cause or should cause each other ABH for no good reason."
but there are exceptions to basic rule (basic rule = you cannot consent abh or more serious harm)
47
R v Coney (1882)
cannot consent to prize-fights
48
R v Jones (1986)
can consent to rough horseplay -> boys throwing each other around
49
R v Aitken [1992]
rough horseplay -> airforce pilots setting each other on fire
50
R v A [2005]
rough horseplay -> BUT need V's consent -> thrown in a river but can't swim
51
R v Barnes [2004]
playing a sport is okay -> but going beyond the scope of that sport isn't
52
R v Bradshaw (1878)
intentional infliction of injury where the sport does not demand it will not be lawful
53
R v Wilson [1997]
branding of wife by husband -> found to be lawful -> conflict with Brown -> seen as closer to tattoing
54
R v Slingsby [1995]
accidental harm from battery (where you can consent) to abh is not unlawful
55
R v Meachen [2006]
only intended a battery -> accidentally went into abh -> not unlawful
56
R v Konzani [2005]
confirms Dica
57
R v B [2006]
HIV -> confirms Dica
58
R v Rowe [2018]
consent is irrelevant where D is intentionally aiming to infect others
59
R v BM [2018]
whilst tattoing (Wilson) and ear piercing (Brown) is lawful -> body modifications aren't
60
R v Melin [2019]
consent obtained by fraud for oap -> vitiates consent -> lying about medical qualifications
