non fatal offences
- Created by: joshnicholls238
- Created on: 15-02-14 12:10
View mindmap
- Non Fatal offences
- common assault
- actus reus = were d causes v to apprehend immediate application of unlawful force
- e.g through threats
- R v Ireland
- Smith
- words
- Turbill v Savage
- e.g through threats
- mens rea = intends or is subjectively reckless of possible infliction of harm
- actus reus = were d causes v to apprehend immediate application of unlawful force
- common law battery
- actus reus = d applies force BUT can happen without assault
- any unlawful physical contact will amount to battery
- established in R v Thomas
- force may be applied indirectly
- R v Martin
- application of force should be hostile
- Wilson v Pringle
- any unlawful physical contact will amount to battery
- CPS example of battery
- grazing and scratches
- swellings and minor brusing
- redness of skin and black eyes
- mens rea= intend or is subjectively reckless as to application of force
- actus reus = d applies force BUT can happen without assault
- s47 ABH
- Actus Reus = same as common law assault and/or battery
- stated in Miller abh inc hurt or serious injury that interferes with health and comfort of the victim
- r v chan fook states injury need not be permanent but should not be so trivial as to be wholly significant
- e.g cutting someones hair may constitute as abh i.e DPP v smith
- CPS examples inc.
- minor fractures and cuts
- extensive/ multiple brusing
- displace/broken nose and braking of teeth
- phyciatric ingury
- mens rea = same as assault and battery + doesn't have to be aware of risk of any harm
- r v roberts
- daftness test as long as v does not do something so daft d still liable
- r v roberts
- Actus Reus = same as common law assault and/or battery
- s20 wounding and gbh
- wounding = breaking the surface of the skin
- eisenhower
- GBH
- actus reus in dpp v smith held to be really serious harm
- case of saunders omitted the word really
- biological held to be gbh i.e. R v Dica
- R V Burstow inflict means the same as cause
- mens rea = must intend to cause some harm or be subjectively reckless i.e must be aware of some harm
- r v grimshaw
- actus reus in dpp v smith held to be really serious harm
- CPS examples
- injury resulting in permanent disability
- injury resulting in disfigurement + displaced limbs or bones
- compound fractures and substantial loss of blood
- psychiatric injury - burstow
- injuries resulting in lengthy treatment and incapacity
- wounding = breaking the surface of the skin
- s18 wounding and gbh with intent
- actus reus = same as s20 but with 2 additions i.e causing gbh with intent to resist arrest and wounding with intent to resist arrest
- definitions for gbh and wounding same as s20
- mens rea = prosecution must prove d intended to cause serious harm or intend to resist arrest
- d must directly intend the harm or as in nedrick jury can decide whether they intended harm or whether it was virtually certain it would occur as a result of their actions
- R v Morrison
- actus reus = same as s20 but with 2 additions i.e causing gbh with intent to resist arrest and wounding with intent to resist arrest
- common assault
Comments
No comments have yet been made