Non-fatal offences

Created by: Hayley Petts
Created on: 29-05-14 13:03

View mindmap

non-fatal offences against the person
- Assault - s39 CJA 1988
  - actus reus
    - requires some act or words..
      - Constanza (1997) - letters can be an assault
      - Ireland (1997) - silent telephone calls can be an assault
    - apprehend immediate unlawful force
      - Lamb (1967) - pointing an unloaded gun at someone who knows its unloaded cannot be an assault
        other person does not fear immediate force
      - Smith v CC of Woking (1983) - looked through V's bedroom window late at night
        fear of what D would do next was sufficient
        
        immediate unlawful force need only be imminent
      - Turberville v Savage (1669) - put hand on sword saying if judges not in town would act differently
        not assault - showed he wasn't going to do anything
      - Light (1857) raised sword over wife's head and threatened her
        assault as wife feared force and words did not negate fear
  - mens rea
    - intention to cause apprehension of immediate unlawful force
    - recklessness as to whether such apprehension is caused
      - D must realise that act/words could cause another to apprehend unlawful person violence
- Battery - s39 CJA 1988
  - actus reus
    - the application of unlawful force to another person
    - Thomas (1985) - touching a woman's skirt can be battery
    - Continuing Act
      - Fagan (1969) - parked on policeman's foot. Asked to move but F turned engine off for several minutes
        Actus reus occurred when D drove car onto foot
        
        Mens rea occured when intended not to move the car and offence completed when engine switched off
    - Indirect Act
      - Martin (1881) - put bar across theatre door way turned off lights and shouted 'fire!' several people injured
      - DPP v K (1990) - schoolboy stole acid and hid it in hot hand air dryer used by another boy who was burned
        convicted quashed but Divisional Court QBD held battery could be indirect
    - omission
      - DDP v Santa- Bermudez (2003) - police asked if D had sharp objects before search. said no and policewoman injured by needle
        failure to tell truth created liability
    - unlawful force
      - A v UK (1998) - D beat son with garden cane
        acquitted by jury but ECHR said UK law offended Art 3 ECHR
  - mens rea
    - intention to apply unlawful force
    - recklessness as to whether unlawful force is applied
      - D must realise risk that act or omission could cause unlawful force to be applied
- assault occasioning ABH - s47 OAPA
  - actus reus
    - an assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm
      - Miller (1954) - ABH = 'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of V'
      - T v DPP (2003) - short loss of consciousness was held to be ABH
    - DPP v Smith (Michael) (2006) - cutting V's hair can amount to ABH
      - Divisional Court QBD held cutting substantial amount of hair is sufficient
    - Psychiatric injury
      - Chan Fook (1994) - ABH does not include 'mere emotions such as fear, stress, or panic'
        nor does it include a 'state of the mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition'
  - mens rea
    - intention of recklessness as to whether V fears or is subjected to unlawful force
      - no need to prove any mens rea for ABH
    - Roberts (1971) - tried to remove coat off female hitchhiker in car who jumped out and suffered cuts and bruises
      - convicted as intended to apply unlawful force and no mens rea needed for resulting GBH
    - Savage (1991) - threw beer over woman in pub but glass slipped and cut woman's hand
      - convicted as no mens rea for harm but intended to apply unlawful force
- malicious wounding/ inflicting GBH - s20 OAPA
  - actus reus
    - D must wound or inflict GBH
    - wound
      - means a 'cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin'
      - JJC v Eisenhower (1983) - V hit in eye by shotgun pellet
        caused severe bleeding under surface, but as thee was no cut it was not held to be a wound
      - Wood (1830) - V's collar bone broken but as skin was intact it was held not be a wound
    - grievous bodily harm
      - DPP v Smith (1961) - GBH means 'really serious harm'
        Saunders (1985) - held it was permissible to direct a jury that there need be 'serious harm'
      - Bollom (2004) - convicted when 17 month-old child suffered bruises to abdomen, arms and legs
        held the severity of the injuries should be assessed according to V's age and health
        convicted of more serious offence due to age of V
      - Dica (2004) - transmission of HIV without the question of consent was sufficient for GBH
      - Burstow (1997) - carried out campaign of harassment against ex - gf
        abusive + silent calls, hate mail and stalking caused severe depression
        convicted based on level of psychiatric harm
  - mens rea
    - intention to cause some injury
    - be subjectively reckless as to whether injury was inflicted
    - Parmenter (1991) - injured baby son by throwing him in air and did not realise risk of injury
      - conviction of s20 reduced on appeal to s47 as did not foresee any injury
- wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent s18 OAPA
  - actus reus
    - wounding or causing GBH
  - mens rea
    - D must have intended to:
      - do some GBH
      - or resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainee of any person
  - Belfon (1976) - used ror to slash V this demonstrated intent to wound under s18
  - Morrison (1989) - police officer grabbed D to arrest him but D leapt through window, dragging officer, who was badly cut by glass
    - convicted as either intended injury or realised risk of it occurring and took risk

Get Revising

Non-fatal offences

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: