The concept of liability - non-fatal offences unit 2

• Assault (least serious harm)
• battery
• actual bodily harm (ABH)
• grievious bodily harm (GBH) section 20
• grievious bodily harm (GBH) section 18. (most serious harm)

Assault and battery are common law offences which menas each offence is defined through decided cases only, with no statutory definition.

Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 doeswn't define these offences, it just states the maximum sentence (6 months). The Magistrates' Court deal with these offences.

ABH, GBH and intentional GBH are defined in the Offences against the person act 1861.

Least serious of all the non-fatal offences and no physical harm is caused.

Actus Reus of an assault --- any act taht causes the victim to apprehend an immediate infliction of unlawful violence.

R v Logdon.

Smith v Chief Constable of Woking.

R v Ireland.

Tuberville v Savage.

R v Lamb.

Facts --- D as a joke pointed a gun at V who was terrified, until he told hger that it was a replica.

Held --- The courts said that violence can be words or actions. V had apprehended immediate physical violence and D had been at least reckless as to whether this would occur.

Facts --- D entered a private garden at night and looked through Vs bedroom window. She was terrified as she thought he was going to enter her room.

Held --- Vs fear was enough for an assault even though he couldn't immediately attack her. The courts said violence can be words, actions or threatening behaviour. V had apprehended immediate physical violence.

Facts --- D made several silent phone calls to 3 women frightening them.

Held --- Even silent calls can be an assault. Psychiactric injury can amount to bodily harm. Convicted under section 47 but guilty of assault.

Facts --- D, arguing with another man, put his hand on his sword and said "were it not assize time, i would not take such language from you".

Held --- Not an assault because the defendant showed he wasn't going to do anything. Words can negate an assault.

Facts --- D was fooling around with a revolver believing it was unloaded; he pointed it at a friend and shot him dead.

Held --- Charged with manslaughter as it was unintentional. It was not an assualt becuase V didn't fear any violence in the circumstance so he wasn't charged with assault.

Intention to cause the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence or does so recklessly.

R v Savage

Rv Mohan (direct intention)

R v Nedrick (oblique intention)

R v Cunningham (subjective recklessness)

Held --- intention to cause the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence or does so recklessly. The defendenty must realise the risk taht has actions and/or words could cause the victim to fear unlawful personal violence (subjective recklessness) and does it.

Held --- it can be said that it was the defendent's aim, purpose and desire. Intention is satisfied if the intention is to cause a result and the act to do so.

Facts --- D pours paraffin through a letterbox and sets it on fire in order to scare the property owner. The woman is scared an dmoves out, but resultingly a child dies in the fire.

Held --- Is death or serious injury the virtually certain result of the Ds voluntary act? Does the D foresee the death or serious injury was the virtually certain result of their act?

D tore the gas metre from the wall and stole money from it. He didn't turn off the gas. Gas escaped and seeped through the wall which partially asphyxiated his prospective mother-in-law.

Held --- The taking of an unjustifiable risk. D knew the risk and voluntarily took it anyway.

The application of an unlawful force to the victim. The force involved can be very slight; it is suggested that even the touching of clothes may be sufficient.

The unlawful application can be:

• Direct act
• Indirect act
• Continuing act
• Omission.