Non Fatal Offences Against the Person

Cases & chronological development of the law in relation to Non fatals.

OCR Spec.

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Freya
  • Created on: 15-06-11 11:50
Preview of Non Fatal Offences Against the Person

First 287 words of the document:

NON FATAL OFFENCES
ASSAULT
Common law off. but charged under S39 CJA 1986 (NOT statutory off.)
Def = `And act which causes V to apprehend immediate force
AR
"Apprehend" - not fear, just pre-empt/ expect
Lodgen 1976
D threatened V w/unloaded gun, V apprehended being shot but in fact no danger
Lamb 1967
If V does not apprehend force, no ass.
"Immediate" - tech. means threat of future violence not ass.
Smith 1983
D escaped from prison & stood in V's garden at night, staring at her through window
Ireland 1997
Silent phone calls to V held as ass.
Constanza 1997
Held V must fear force at some point, not excluding the immediate future
"Force" - not violence, a touch is enough
Collins 1984
PO grabbed V's arm to stop her to search her and this held as ass.
Ass. by words alone - Ireland & Constanza disprove the need for physical contact
Lord Stein (in Ireland) ; "the idea action can be an assault and not words is not realistic, e.g. someone
threatens you down an alley, `come with me or I'll stab you'
Words may negate an ass. - The threat made with a condition that negates it is suff.
Tuberville v Savage 1869
D threatened V but said `if it weren't for'; held to negate the ass.
BUT - Light 1957
D said same and held V only had his word to go by & so still apprehended force
D must have caused V's apprehension - usual rules of causation apply

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

MR
R v Venna
Intention / Sub. Recklessness
R v Savage & Parametre 1982
Cunningham also applies; `Conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk'
BATTERY
Common law but charged under S19 CJA 1986
Def = The application of force, however slight, to V
AR
Even the merest touch equates to batt.
Cole v Turner 1974
The degree of force used may mot be very high
Collins v Wilcock 1984
Robert Goff LJ; `It has long been est.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

Directness?
Martin 1881
D placed iron bar on doors & turned off the lights in a theatre, conviction of inflicting GBH w/batt.
Haystead 2000
D punched V & V dropped her baby, D g. of ass. the baby
Thomas 1985
Touching a woman's skirt equates to batt. as clothing extension of her
Fagan 1969
D drove onto PO's foot & when realised, didn't remove the car
Bermudez 2003
PO searched a drug addict & when asked if had anything in pockets, D replied no.…read more

Page 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

V. wide; this judgement opens doors for later judgements to be made extending ABH
Can psychological harm constitute ABH?
Chanfook 1994
`The Body of the victim inc. all parts of the body, including his organs, his nervous system & his brain'
Hobhouse LJ; `ABH is capable of inc. psychiatric injury but does not inc.…read more

Page 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

GBH?
Smith 1961
`Really serious bodily harm'
Saunders 1985
States that `serious bodily harm' will suffice (don't need the `really')
Bollom2003
victim was a baby; argument of the defendant that age should be relevant was dismissed; age was
Age can therefore be assessed when assessing the impact of the GBH
Directness?
DPP v K
Burstow 1996
defendant became obsessed w/victim after end of relationship & made contact through phone,
stalking, letters stole underwear & scattered condoms around her garden
GBH had occurred although there had…read more

Page 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

Need not foresee GBH, just the poss. of some harm occurring as a result of voluntary actions
Grimshaw 1984
defendant pushed glass in victim's face, argued didn't foresee full extent of the injury
Held this was irrelevant, she foresaw poss.…read more

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »