Non-Fatal Offences
- Created by: Dan Edwards
- Created on: 30-03-13 23:02
View mindmap
- Non-Fatal Offences
- Assault
- Common Law Offence
- Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39
- Summary Offence
- DPP v Little [1992]
- Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000]
- Summary Offence
- Summary Offence
- DPP v Little [1992]
- Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000]
- Actus Reus - An act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person
- Collins v Wilcock [1984]
- The victim must fear unlawful and immediate harm
- R v Lamb [1967]
- Mens Rea - a defendant must have either direct, oblique or reckless intent to cause their victim to fear immediate harm
- Immediately has been interpreted by the courts very broadly
- Actus Reus - An act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person
- Collins v Wilcock [1984]
- The victim must fear unlawful and immediate harm
- R v Lamb [1967]
- Smith v Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station [1993]
- R v Ireland and Burstow [1996]
- R v Constansa [1997]
- Logdon v DPP [1976]
- Tuberville v Savage [1669]
- Actus Reus - An act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person
- Immediately has been interpreted by the courts very broadly
- Acts and Omissions - An act (rather than an omission) may be necessary!
- Fagan v MPC [1969]
- DPP v K [1990]
- DPP V Santana-Bermudez [2003]
- "Where someone (by act or word or a combination of the two) creates a danger and thereby exposes another to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury which materialises, there is an evidential basis for the actus reus of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm"
- s.47 Offences Against The Person Act 1861 (ABH - Actual Bodily Harm)
- Actus Reus - It must be established that D committed the actus reus of assault or battery and then proved that the assault/battery caused ABH
- Mens Rea - Same as assault or battery. Additional MR is not required for ABH
- R v Roberts [1978]
- Broadly interpreted definition by the courts
- R v Miller [1954]
- Hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. "Hurt" was defined as not permanent but more transient or trifling
- T v DPP [2003]
- DPP v Smith [2006]
- Hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. "Hurt" was defined as not permanent but more transient or trifling
- R v Chan-Fook [1994]
- Developed definition - Injury should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant, although the injury need not be permanent, and must not be really serious
- Hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. "Hurt" was defined as not permanent but more transient or trifling
- T v DPP [2003]
- DPP v Smith [2006]
- Hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. "Hurt" was defined as not permanent but more transient or trifling
- Developed definition - Injury should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant, although the injury need not be permanent, and must not be really serious
- R v Miller [1954]
- s.47 Offences Against The Person Act 1861 (ABH - Actual Bodily Harm)
- "Where someone (by act or word or a combination of the two) creates a danger and thereby exposes another to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury which materialises, there is an evidential basis for the actus reus of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm"
- Battery
- Common Law
- Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39
- Summary Offence
- Actus Reus - The application of unlawful touch or violence on another
- Any unlawful touch may amount to a battery
- It is not necessary that the touch result in harm or hurt
- R v Kingston [1994]
- It must, however NOT be so trivial that it can be ignored within the de minimis range
- Whether a touch is considered unlawful may be affected by issues such as consent, self defence, chastisement and lawful authority
- R v H [2001]
- Children Act 2004 s58
- The force may be indirectly applied
- R v Thomas [1985]
- R v Savage [1991]
- Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire
- It is not necessary that the touch result in harm or hurt
- Any unlawful touch may amount to a battery
- Mens Rea - Direct, oblique or reckless intent to unlawfully touch the victim
- Any unlawful touch may amount to a battery
- It is not necessary that the touch result in harm or hurt
- R v Kingston [1994]
- It must, however NOT be so trivial that it can be ignored within the de minimis range
- Whether a touch is considered unlawful may be affected by issues such as consent, self defence, chastisement and lawful authority
- R v H [2001]
- Children Act 2004 s58
- The force may be indirectly applied
- R v Thomas [1985]
- R v Savage [1991]
- Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire
- It is not necessary that the touch result in harm or hurt
- Any unlawful touch may amount to a battery
- s.47 Offences Against The Person Act 1861 (ABH - Actual Bodily Harm)
- Actus Reus - It must be established that D committed the actus reus of assault or battery and then proved that the assault/battery caused ABH
- Mens Rea - Same as assault or battery. Additional MR is not required for ABH
- R v Roberts [1978]
- Broadly interpreted definition by the courts
- R v Miller [1954]
- R v Chan-Fook [1994]
- Developed definition - Injury should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant, although the injury need not be permanent, and must not be really serious
- Developed definition - Injury should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant, although the injury need not be permanent, and must not be really serious
- R v Miller [1954]
- s.20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861 (GBH - Grievous Bodily Harm)
- Punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment
- Actus Reus - Offence committed if the defendant either unlawfully inflicts GBH or unlawfully wounds the victim
- Bollom [2003]
- Mens Rea - Direct, oblique or reckless intent to cause some harm
- s.18 Offences Against The Person Act (GBH)
- Punishable with up to life imprisonment
- Actus Reus - Offence committed if the defendant either unlawfully inflicts GBH or unlawfully wounds the victim
- Bollom [2003]
- Actus Reus - Offence committed if the defendant either unlawfully inflicts GBH or unlawfully wounds the victim
- Punishable with up to life imprisonment
- s.18 Offences Against The Person Act (GBH)
- GBH = Really serious harm
- DPP v Smith [1961]
- Inflict also includes situations where no physical force, directly or indirectly, has been applied to the body of the victim. E.g. menacing phone calls
- R v Ireland and Burstow [1997]
- Wounding - requires all layers of the skin be broken. Internal bleeding not sufficient!
- C (a minor) v Eisenhower [1984]
- s.47 OAPA [1861]
- Statutory offence under OAPA 1861 and triable either way
- Punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment
- s.18 Offences Against The Person Act (GBH)
- Punishable with up to life imprisonment
- Punishable with up to life imprisonment
- Assault
- Statutory offence under OAPA 1861 and triable either way
Comments
No comments have yet been made