Offences Against the Person Summary
- Created by: susantatex1
- Created on: 05-04-16 14:31
View mindmap
- Offences Against the Person
- Common Assault
- Battery
- AR: Application of unlawful violence
- MR: Intent or subjective recklessness
- 'Unlawful Force' - the slightest touch can be a battery as shown by the case of Collins V Wilcock
- Where is it lawful?
- Self defense/ defense of another
- Parental Discipline: the 2004 Children Act made the battery of a child which leaves injury as illegal
- Omissions: A battery can take place when there is a dangerous situation created. This is shown by the case if Miller
- Continuing Act: A battery can be committed through a CA, as shown by the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Indirect Act: There does not have to be direct touching, shown by the case of Dpp v K
- Assault
- AR: An act which made the victim fear immediate unlawful violence
- 'Immediate' does not have to be instantenous shown via the case of Smith v CSWPS
- MR: Intent or recklessness
- There need to be an act.
- Emails/letters can be an assault shown by the case of Contanza
- Silence can be an assault, shown by the case of Ireland
- If the force threatened is not unlawful then there is no offence
- AR: An act which made the victim fear immediate unlawful violence
- Both found under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
- Assault
- AR: An act which made the victim fear immediate unlawful violence
- 'Immediate' does not have to be instantenous shown via the case of Smith v CSWPS
- MR: Intent or recklessness
- There need to be an act.
- Emails/letters can be an assault shown by the case of Contanza
- Silence can be an assault, shown by the case of Ireland
- If the force threatened is not unlawful then there is no offence
- AR: An act which made the victim fear immediate unlawful violence
- Battery
- AR: Application of unlawful violence
- MR: Intent or subjective recklessness
- 'Unlawful Force' - the slightest touch can be a battery as shown by the case of Collins V Wilcock
- Where is it lawful?
- Self defense/ defense of another
- Parental Discipline: the 2004 Children Act made the battery of a child which leaves injury as illegal
- Omissions: A battery can take place when there is a dangerous situation created. This is shown by the case if Miller
- Continuing Act: A battery can be committed through a CA, as shown by the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Indirect Act: There does not have to be direct touching, shown by the case of Dpp v K
- MR for both: DPP v Majewski - getting intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct
- Assault
- Battery
- Actual Bodily Harm
- This offence can be found under s.47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act.
- What is ABH?
- Chan Fook 1994
- Ruled that psychiatric injury constituted ABH
- Must be more then mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic
- ABH were ordinary words: harm means injury, actual means it must be more than minimal
- Ruled that psychiatric injury constituted ABH
- R (T) v DPP
- Loss of consciousness, even momentarily is ABH
- Dpp V. Smith held thatcutting someones hair is ABH
- ABH can be charged when there is bruising, scratches, and grazes present
- Chan Fook 1994
- What is ABH?
- AR: An assault or battery which causes ABH
- MR: Intent or subjective recklessness
- Recklessness: shown by the cases of Roberts and Williams - defendant is liable for their injuries
- This offence can be found under s.47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act.
- Grievous Bodily HArm
- s.20
- AR: Inflicting grievous bodily harm
- Must be a technical assault or battery, shown in the case of Lewis
- The case of Parmenter held that there is no need for the defendant to foresee this level of serious injury
- MR: Intending some injury to be caused or reckless as to whether GBH was inflicted
- Maliciously: an intention to cause specific harm, or reckless as to whether harm could be caused. Shown in Cunningham.
- Max. sentence 5 years
- AR: Inflicting grievous bodily harm
- s.18
- 'Wounding with Intent'
- AR: wounding causing GBH
- To wound without intent is not enough for a s.18 shown via the case of Taylor.
- MR: Intent to cause GBH or resist aresst for themselves or another person
- Untitled
- What is GBH?
- 'Wound' this means a cut or break in the skin. This is shown by the case of JCC v Einsenhower
- DPP v Smith held that GBH means 'really serious harm'
- The injury's should be assessed according to the victims age and healthy
- The case of Burstow held that really serious psyciatirc innjury could be GBH
- The transmission of a disease can be GBH, shown via the case of Dica
- s.20
- Common Assault
Comments
No comments have yet been made