50-Mark Non-Fatal Offences Analysis

A common law offence where the actus reus is any act causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. It can be committed through words, actions, or even silent phone calls.

The actus reus of assault requires an act that causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. It can be through words, actions, or even silent phone calls.

Tuberville v Savage shows that words can negate assault if they demonstrate the threat is not immediate.

R v Ireland and Burstow expanded the definition of assault to include silent phone calls and threatening letters, even though they might not be immediately violent.

Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station showed that being in one's nightdress in a locked house is enough to indicate 'immediate enough' threat for assault.

The mental element of assault, which requires the defendant to intentionally or recklessly cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAP Act) and common law (for assault and battery) govern the law on non-fatal offences against the person.

The CPS Charging Standards aim for consistent charging decisions, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's history.

A crime where intention (direct or oblique) is required to prove the mental element. It cannot be proven with recklessness alone.

The actus reus of s. 18 involves either maliciously wounding or causing grievous bodily harm. The term 'cause' emphasizes that causation is required for the offense.

The mens rea of s. 18 requires two things: (1) the act must be done 'maliciously,' and (2) there must be specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist or prevent lawful arrest.

S. 18 is a specific intent offense, meaning it can only be proven with intention, either direct or oblique. This reflects the severity of the injuries and reinforces the need for a high level of culpability.

S. 47 and S. 20 are basic intent offences, which means they can be proven with either intention or recklessness. This contrasts with S. 18 which requires specific intent.

The meaning of 'wound' and 'grievous bodily harm' are the same for both S. 18 and S. 20. Both require serious injury, though the harm need not be permanent or life-threatening.

Transferred malice applies to S. 18 as well. It means that if a defendant intends to cause harm to one person but accidentally harms another, the mens rea can be transferred to the unintended victim.

A new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation, potentially absolving the original actor from responsibility for the harm. It is not necessarily a defense on its own, but can alter the course of events.

The application of unlawful physical force on another person.

The mens rea of battery requires either intention or recklessness to apply unlawful force. The defendant must have intended to apply force or been reckless as to whether they would apply force.

A battery can also be committed through an omission, meaning a failure to act when there is a legal duty to do so.

The offence of actual bodily harm (ABH) requires the defendant to have committed an assault or battery that caused actual bodily harm to the victim.

The harm caused must be 'actual' and more than 'transient or trifling'. This includes both physical and psychological injuries.

The defendant's act must be the cause of the actual bodily harm, meaning there must be a direct link between their actions and the harm.

An offence under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is triable 'either way', meaning it can be heard in either a Magistrates' Court or Crown Court.

The maximum sentence for ABH is 5 years’ imprisonment, meaning that is the longest period someone can be sent to prison for this offence.

An assault is a common law offence, meaning it is based on legal precedents rather than on a specific statute.

Assault and battery are two distinct offences but are often charged together as 'common assault'.

A summary offence is one which is heard in the Magistrates' Court only and the maximum sentence for a summary offence is six months imprisonment or a fine.

The term 'occasioning' in s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 means to bring about or cause.

Actual bodily harm (ABH) is an offense under English law that occurs when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another person actual bodily harm. It is a 'triable either way' offense, meaning it can be tried in either a Magistrates' Court or Crown Court.

The actus reus of ABH is the act of causing actual bodily harm to another person. This harm must be more than 'merely transient or trifling', meaning it must be a significant injury.

The mens rea of ABH is the intention or recklessness to cause actual bodily harm. This means the defendant intended or was reckless as to whether the harm was caused.

In the case of Roberts (1971), it was established that there is no need to prove any extra mens rea for the actual bodily harm itself. As long as the defendant had the mens rea for assault or battery (intention or recklessness to apply unlawful force), that is sufficient for ABH.

The 'novus actus interveniens' doctrine applies to ABH. If there is a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's actions and the victim's harm, the defendant may not be liable for ABH.

Grievous bodily harm (GBH) is a serious offense under English law that involves causing serious harm to another person. It is an indictable offense, meaning it must be tried in the Crown Court.

The actus reus of GBH can be satisfied in two ways: 1. Infliction of GBH - causing 'really serious harm' to another person. 2. Wounding - causing a break in the continuity of the victim's skin.

The 'infliction' of GBH requires proving that the defendant caused 'really serious harm' to the victim. This harm must be more than just 'transient or trifling', meaning it must be a significant injury.

The court will consider the victim's injuries to determine if they constitute 'grievous bodily harm'. The harm must be 'really serious', as defined in DPP v Smith (1961), meaning it must be significant.

A 'wound' in the context of GBH is defined as a break in the continuity of the victim's skin, meaning both the dermis and epidermis must be broken. It is more than just a scratch or break to the outer skin.

The mens rea of GBH is defined by the word 'maliciously', which means the defendant acted with intention or recklessness to cause some harm to the victim. It does not require intent or recklessness to cause grievous bodily harm.

The case of Mowatt (1967) established that it's sufficient to prove the defendant intended or was reckless to cause some physical harm, not necessarily grievous bodily harm. This means the prosecution doesn't need to prove the defendant aimed to cause serious harm, just some harm.

The leading case on the mens rea of GBH is R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter, which confirms that the prosecution doesn't need to prove the defendant intended or was reckless to cause grievous bodily harm. It is sufficient to prove that the defendant intended or was reckless to cause some harm.

GBH with intent (s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) is an offense where the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm or to wound the victim. This is a serious offense with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

S. 18 also covers causing GBH with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of a person. This means that if someone is being arrested and they cause GBH or wound another person in order to escape, they can be charged under s.18.