s.47 OAPA
- Created by: Zoe
- Created on: 11-04-13 13:15
View mindmap
- s.47 OAPA - Aggravated Assault
- Actus reus: An 'assult' which causes 'Actual bodily harm'
- 'Actual Bodily harm'
- R v Donovan [1934]
- Any harm intended to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim which is not transient or trifling.
- S.47 should be charged where there is loss or breaking of a tooth, temporary loss of sensory function, extensive or multiple bruising, broken nose, minor fractures, minor cuts requiring stitches, and psychiatric illness which is more than fear, distress or panic
- Any harm intended to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim which is not transient or trifling.
- R v Ireland, R v Burstow
- The words 'bodily harm' must be interpreted to include recognised psychological illness
- An assault under s.47 can be committed by words or gestures alone depending on the particular circumstances.
- If the making of silent phone calls causes the victim to apprehend immediate personal violence, the caller may be liable
- It is not suffiicient that the victim is placed into a state of general fearfulness
- R v Donovan [1934]
- 'Assult'
- R v Ireland, R v Burstow
- Definition expanded beyond apprehension of the part of v, of an immediate touching or application of unlawful force to include the mere use of words and the making of silent phone calls
- R v Ireland, R v Burstow
- 'Actual Bodily harm'
- Mens Rea : An intent or recklessness as to an imminent unlawful touching or use of force
- R v Savage, DPP v Parmenter [1992]
- OAPA provides no express requirement of an intention or foresight in relation to the actus reus of 'actual bodily harm'
- This requirement should not be held to be implied as the term 'occasioning' relates to the question of causation and not to the question of D's state of mind
- This position was based upon R v Roberts which held that liability under s.47 required no more than an assault which, in turn, caused ABH.
- This position was based upon R v Roberts which held that liability under s.47 required no more than an assault which, in turn, caused ABH.
- This requirement should not be held to be implied as the term 'occasioning' relates to the question of causation and not to the question of D's state of mind
- OAPA provides no express requirement of an intention or foresight in relation to the actus reus of 'actual bodily harm'
- R v Savage, DPP v Parmenter [1992]
- Actus reus: An 'assult' which causes 'Actual bodily harm'
Comments
No comments have yet been made