Non-Fatal Offences: Assault Overview

The act of D causing V to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.

D intends or is reckless about causing V to fear imminent unlawful violence.

An act that directly, indirectly, or through an object, applies force to another person.

D intends or is reckless about the application of force towards another person.

Assault can be committed through words or silence.

A conditional threat that lacks an immediate threat of harm is not enough for assault.

The touching of someone's clothing can be sufficient for a battery.

Consent can be a defense against assault or battery.

This defense reduces murder to manslaughter and requires the defendant to prove their mental state on a balance of probabilities.

An abnormality of mental functioning that arises from a recognized medical condition and substantially impairs the defendant's ability to understand their actions, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control.

A recognized medical condition that is relevant to diminished responsibility.

A significant impairment in the defendant's ability to understand their actions, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control.

The mental impairment must be a significant factor in causing the defendant's actions.

Expert evidence is often used to determine if a defendant suffers from a recognized medical condition and whether it resulted in a substantial impairment.

Juries cannot disregard uncontradicted and unchallenged expert evidence without a valid reason.

Jurors can reject expert evidence if there is a proper basis for doing so.

This type of manslaughter occurs when the defendant's unlawful act causes death.

The unlawful act must be dangerous in the sense that it poses a risk of some harm to another person.

The defendant's subjective intention or foresight is irrelevant. The act must be objectively considered dangerous.

The act causing death must be a positive act, not an omission.

The unlawful act must be a criminal offense, not a strict liability crime or a regulatory crime.

The victim's consent is irrelevant for the purposes of unlawful act manslaughter.

Directly subjecting another person to unwanted physical contact, without lawful justification.

Actus Reus (AR) of Battery: Applying force to the victim, which is unlawful and without consent. Mens Rea (MR): Intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force.

An act that puts a person in fear of immediate unlawful force. It doesn't require physical contact.

Actus Reus (AR) of Assault: Causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force. Mens Rea (MR): Intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.

Indirect touching through a medium, such as an object, is still considered battery.

A failure to act, which results in the victim suffering battery, can be considered battery through omission if the defendant created the danger and failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate it.

Direct intention exists when the defendant intended to subject the victim to unlawful direct or indirect touching.

Oblique Intention exists when the defendant, while not intending to cause battery, recognizes that the victim's unlawful direct or indirect touching is virtually certain to occur, and accepts the risk.

Assault or battery that causes actual bodily harm (ABH).

Actus Reus (AR) of ABH: Assault or battery that causes ABH. Mens Rea (MR): Intention or recklessness for the assault or battery, but not necessarily for the ABH itself.

Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) is defined as any harm calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim, and is more than merely transient and trifling.

Maliciously inflicting GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm) or wounding another person.

Actus Reus (AR) of s20: Inflicting GBH or wounding a person. Mens Rea (MR): Intention or subjective recklessness as to causing SOME harm, not necessarily the actual harm inflicted.

Wounding or causing GBH with the intent to cause GBH, or to resist the lawful apprehension of a detainer.

Actus Reus (AR): Unlawfully causing GBH or wounding. Mens Rea (MR): Intent to cause GBH, or intent to resist lawful apprehension or detainer.

The actus reus (AR) of causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) is the same as for s20 - unlawfully and maliciously inflicting GBH. The mens rea (MR) is the intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension of a detainer. This intention is combined with Cunningham recklessness as to causing the GBH - that is, the defendant must have been aware of the risk that their actions would cause GBH, and taken that risk.

The defense of consent applies differently here than it does in Sexual Offences Act (SOA) cases. Here, consent to causing GBH (even with intent to resist arrest) cannot be a defense, because consent in this context does not negate the intent to cause harm.

The actus reus of murder is causing the death of a human being in the Queen's peace. This means that the victim must be a living person and the killing must occur in a peaceful and law-abiding context, not during war or a riot.

The mens rea of murder is intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). This intent must be expressed as direct intent (aiming to kill or cause GBH) or oblique intent (knowing that death or GBH is virtually certain to result from actions).

The definition of death for homicide offenses is brain death - the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity. A person in a vegetative state (where the brain stem is working, but the higher brain functions are lost) is NOT considered dead.

A foetus is NOT considered a human being for the purposes of homicide offenses. Only after birth does a foetus become a human being and eligible for protection under the law of homicide.

In the case of Maloney (1985), a father and son engaged in a drunken shootout. Lord Bridge stated that the judge should avoid elaborating or paraphrasing what is meant by intent, leaving the jury to decide whether the defendant had the necessary intention based on the circumstances of the case.

In Cunningham (1981), the defendant struck the victim with a chair in an unprovoked attack. The defendant denied intending to kill but admitted to intending to cause GBH. This case confirmed that intention to cause serious bodily harm (GBH) is sufficient mens rea for murder.

Partial defenses to murder reduce the conviction from murder to voluntary manslaughter. These defenses include loss of control and diminished responsibility.

The former defense of provocation was replaced with the narrower defense of loss of control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This defense reduces murder to manslaughter.

A loss of self-control must occur due to a triggering event, The defendant must have actually lost control over their actions as a result of the event.

The triggering event must be one of two qualifying triggers: fear of serious violence from the victim or a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged due to circumstances of extremely grave character, such as something said or done.

A person of the defendant's sex and age with a normal degree of self-restraint in the defendant's circumstances might have acted in the same or similar way. This is an objective test that assesses whether a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have lost control.

The defendant's loss of control does not have to be sudden, reflecting the reality faced by victims of domestic violence or abuse. The length of time between the trigger and the killing is considered, the longer the gap the less likely the defense will succeed.

The defense of loss of control fails if the defendant acted in a considered desire for revenge. This means that the defendant cannot plan or premeditate the killing.

A legal principle stating that a person can be found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter even if the specific type of harm caused to the victim was not foreseen, as long as some harm was reasonably foreseeable.

The principle that mere fright or emotional distress without physical harm is not considered sufficient harm for unlawful act manslaughter.

Focuses on the visible characteristics of the victim to determine the foreseeability of harm. Eg: An elderly person may be more susceptible to stress-induced heart attacks.

The principle that a burglary, while not inherently dangerous, can be considered dangerous under specific circumstances, potentially leading to manslaughter. These circumstances are assessed on a case-by-case basis.

A type of manslaughter where the defendant's act or omission (failure to act) causes the death of another, and the circumstances reveal a clear failure to meet basic standards of care, disregarding an obvious and serious risk to the victim's life.

In GNM, the defendant must owe a legal duty of care to the victim. This duty exists in various situations, like professional relationships or when a defendant creates a dangerous situation.

In GNM, the defendant must have breached their duty of care to the victim through negligence. This means failing to meet the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in the same circumstances.

In GNM, the risk of death must be serious and obvious. It must be clearly apparent and a significant threat rather than a remote possibility.

In GNM, the defendant must have been reasonably able to foresee that their breach of duty would create a serious and obvious risk of death for the victim.

In GNM, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's breach of duty caused or significantly contributed to the victim's death.

In GNM, the jury determines whether the defendant's negligence is so exceptionally bad and reprehensible that it justifies criminal sanction.

The principle that illegal activities do not automatically mean a defendant owes no duty of care to the victim. The standard of care may be affected but not eradicated.

In GNM, the risk of death assessed is an objective test, meaning it focuses on whether a reasonable person, in the defendant's position, would have seen a serious risk of death at the time of the breach, not whether the defendant personally perceived it.

The principle that a defendant's deliberate avoidance of information or wilful blindness does not excuse them from liability if their breach of care created a risk of death.

The principle that the defendant's age and experience are taken into account when assessing whether a reasonable person of their age and experience would have foreseen a serious risk of death.

A type of manslaughter where the defendant's act or omission caused the death of another; the defendant was aware that a risk of death or serious injury existed; and the risk was taken without adequate justification. It is rarely prosecuted because similar cases are likely to fall under other categories like constructive manslaughter or gross negligence manslaughter.