"Making v apprehend immediate unlwfull violence"
Logdon-Pointed fake gun at V as a joke, but V was terrified
Smith v Supt Of Woking- Looked at v through window who feared violence at any time
R v Ireland-Silent phone calls
DPP v Ramos-Threatning Letters
"Application of unlawfull force"
Cole v Turner-Must be a lack of consent
Collins v Wilcock- shows "any touching however slight amounts to a battery" (police women holding a mans arms but wasn't arresting him).
Haystead -"D hit a women who dropped the baby she was holiding, no need for D to be directly touching V to be guilty.
"Common assault resulting in ABH"
Chan Fook-"More then trivial less then serious"
DPP v Smith- Cut of V ponytail, this didn't cause any injury but hair was treated as part of the body so ABH includes harm and damage not just injury.
DPP v K- D put chemicals in the hand dryer which sprayed V in the face. Guilty of ABH as there didn't have to be direct contact.
GBH/GBH with Intent
Malicous wonding or causing GBH
Moriarty v Brooks- wound ammouts to a brake to the second layer of skin
Eisenhower- A ruptured blood vessel didn't amount to a bllod vessel as it didn't brake to the 2nd layer of skin
Internal injuries are not a wound
DPP v Smith- GBH means "Really serious harm"
Dugdale v Furmstone- Serious enough to require hospital treatment (Broken
bones, internal injuries, dislocated joints etc)
(Bioloogial)-Dica-Knew he had HIV but still had unprotected sex with 2 women
(Psychiatric)-Burstow- Harrased V with abusive phone calls, distributing offensive cards about her.