Non Fatal Defences - Everything.

Non Fatal Defences - Everything. 

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Hannah
  • Created on: 14-06-12 20:01
Preview of Non Fatal Defences - Everything.

First 246 words of the document:

5) Non Fatal Offences against the Person and the defences of self defence and consent
Recognised for sentencing purposes under s39 of the Criminal Justice Act (1988) ­ max sentence 6 months/£5000 fine or both
Actus Reus: An act which causes the V to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force either with intention or through
R v Ireland (1997) ­ D made silent phone calls over an extended period to 3 women. It was held that these could constitute
an assault.
R v Lamb (1967) ­ D and V were playing with a revolver. Mistakenly believing that the gun would not fire, it did killing V,
however as he had not feared any violence there was no assault so D was not guilty/.
Mens Rea: Intention/recklessness that causes another to fear immediate and unlawful force. An offence of basic intent.
Recognised for sentencing purposes under s39 of the Criminal Justice Act (1988) ­ max sentence 6 months/£5000 fine or both
The application of unlawful force to another person, either with intent or through recklessness.
"Force" may actually mean minimal touching:
Collins v Wilcock (1984) ­ 2 police officers asked a woman to get into their police car to be questioned. She refused and
when walking away, one of the officers held her by the arm to stop her, upon which she scratched. Her conviction was
quashed on the basis that the officer had committed a battery.

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

The D does not even have to physically touch the D:
R v Thomas (1985) D touched the hem of a woman's skirt and rubbed it. The CoA stated obiter that touching a person's
clothes whilst they are wearing them is equivalent to touching that person.
A batter may be committed through a continuing act (see Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commander (1968))
Mens Rea: Intention/recklessness to apply unlawful force to another. An offence of basic intent.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

R v Savage (1991) ­ D threw beer over another woman in the pub. The glass slipped from her hand, cutting the V. She only intended to
throw the beer, she had not intended or realised that there was a risk of injury. Convicted.…read more

Page 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Actus Reus: Wounding or causing GBH. The meanings of these words are the same as for s20. The word `cause' has been interpreted
very widely ­ it is only necessary to prove the D's act was a substantial cause of the wound/GBH
Mens Rea: s18 GBH is a specific intent crime. Intention must be proved it is not enough to show that the D was reckless. Therefore
intention has the same meaning as shown in the leading cases for murder.…read more

Page 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

Does the D have to wait until he is attacked before he uses force? The law appears to make it that they can act to prevent force
(i.e. an attack need not have started)
Major issue: the use of excessive force prevents self defence from being used and it is extremely difficult to decide when this
R v Clegg (1995) ­ D was a solider based in Northern Ireland.…read more

Page 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

AO2 Points on the Law of Consent
Judicial Inconsistency: courts can be said to try and impose their own moral values on the law in consent cases as shown by:
R v Brown (1993) ­ A group of sadomasochists were convicted for a variety of ABH and GBH offences that they had
committed to one another, all with consent and with none of them requiring medical attention.…read more



Thank you very much!It is great!

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »