Law 03 NFO ABH 47

Start with either the correct cases for either the assualt or battery and the move on to the cases of ABH: 

Chan Fook - Harm must be more than trvial 

Miller - ABH is any 'hurt or injury' calculated to interfere with health or comfort

Chan Fook - Psychriatic harm can be ABH but not fear, distress or panic 

DPP v Smith - Cutting of someones hair is enough for ABH as hair is part of the body 

Pagett - Supporting the 'But For' test and therefore the factual cause 

White - Aggaint the "But For' test and therefore cannot be liable 

Smith - Defendant is the overwhelming cause of the harm they are the legal cause

Cheshire - Poor medical treatment will not normally break caustion if D has made a significant factor to the death 

Malcherek - Turning off life support will not break the chain of causation 

Roberts - Foreseeable intervening act will not break the chain of causation

Williams - An unreasonable act will break the chain of caustion 

Cato - If D supplies and injects V it will not break causation 

Kennedy - Self-injection of drugs does break the chain of causation 

Blaue - Particular weakness does not break the chain of causation (Think Skull Rule) 

Roberts - Confrimed the mens rea for battery is enough ene if the risk of harm wasnt forseen 

Savage - Mens rea of battery when initiated the act but recklessly caused harm (ABH) 

Mohan - States intention is the decision to bring about the state of affairs 

Cunningham - Subjective recklessness is when the defendant recognises the ris but goes ahead anyway 

Latimer - Aiming at one person but hitting another is enough to be liable 

Fagan - Continuing act AR before MR 

Thabo Meli - Series of events MR before AR