Non-Fatal Offences: Assault

Non-Fatal Offences: Assault

• Assault is a common law offense charged under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Actus Reus of Assault

• An Act: Words can constitute an assault, as seen in Constanza where "800 letters" were considered assault.
• Silence can also constitute an assault, demonstrated in R v Ireland involving telephone calls.
• Words can negate an assault, illustrated in Tuberville v Savage with the phrase "sword, judges".
• Apprehend:
  • An assault can occur even without a direct threat, shown in DPP v Logdon involving an "imitation gun."
  • In R v Lamb, there was no assault because the victim did not apprehend unlawful force with "young boys and a revolver".
• Immediate use of violence: Smith v Chief Superintendent establishes that 'immediate' means imminent, referencing "ground floor flat."
• Unlawful Force: A simple touch can constitute force, exemplified in R v Thomas with the "caretaker".

Mens Rea of Assault

• Intention to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful force: Mohan 1975 defines this as "a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power, the prohibited consequence".
• Recklessness involves awareness of the risk, which can lead to causing Victim to apprehend unlawful force:
  • Cunningham 1957 states, there is risk of the consequence happening and the defendant takes the risk anyway.

Battery

• Battery is a common law offense, charged under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998.

Actus Reus of Battery

• Application: Can be either direct or indirect, seen in cases like R v Martin/DPP v Haystead/DPP v K.
• Unlawful Force:
  • Acceptable uses of force include implied consent in crowded places, handshakes and tapping to gain attention, as long as no more force is used (Colin v Wilcocks).
  • A simple touch can constitute force, demonstrated in R v Thomas with the "caretaker."

Mens Rea of Battery

• Intention to apply unlawful force: Mohan 1975 specifies that this is "a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power, the prohibited consequence".
• Recklessness: There is a risk of the consequence happening, and the defendant takes the risk anyway (Cunningham 1957).

Section 47 ABH (Actual Bodily Harm)

• A defendant can be charged with assault occasioning ABH (Actual Bodily Harm) contrary to Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861.

Actus Reus of S.47 ABH

• Assault or Battery: Involves identifying and defining the actus reus of the initial offense.
• Occasioning:
  • Factual causation relies on the "but for test", demonstrated in R v Pagett.
  • Legal causation requires more than minimal cause, states R v Cheshire, as a "substantial and operating cause".
  • Novus Actus Interveniens consider if a 3rd party is responsible, example- R v Cheshire/Jordan/Smith: “So independent and in itself so potent in causing death that it renders the D's actions insignificant?”
  • Consider Victim's Own Act - R v Roberts/Williams: "Daftness test".
  • A natural and unpredictable event should be considered.
• Thin Skull Rule; a person must “Take your victim as you find them" (R v Blaue).
• Actual Bodily Harm:
  • Encompasses any hurt or injury interfering with the victim's health or comfort (R v Miller).
  • Includes psychiatric harm, as defined in R v Chan Fook, with the "engagement ring" needing to not be trivial.
  • Consists of loss of consciousness even momentarily, according to R v T.

Mens Rea of Assault

• It only needs to be proven that there was mens rea for the initial assault or battery, according to. R v Savage, referencing "pint glass.”
• Mohan 1975 is relevant: “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power, the prohibited consequence."
• Recklessness: There is risk of the consequence happening, and the defendant takes the risk anyway (Cunningham 1957).

Section 20 GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm)

• A defendant can be charged with GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm) contrary to Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Actus Reus of S.20 GBH

• Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm.
• Wound - Eisenhower: “a cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin"
• GBH - DPP v Smith: “really serious harm"
  • R v Brown and Stratton: “transgender father" "serious harm is judged objectively by a jury.”

Additions to GBH

• R v Bollam: "baby" "the jury are entitled to take into account the vulnerability of the Victim.
• R v Burstow: "stalker" "serious psychiatric injury = GBH"
• R v Dica: "HIV" "biological GBH"
• Causation:
  • Factual causation utilizes the "but for test", demonstrated in R v Pagett.
  • Legal causation requires more than minimal cause, states R v Cheshire: "Substantial and operating cause”.
• Consider Novus Actus Interveniens, with an instance being a 3rd Party (usually involving medical treatment) -R v Cheshire/Jordan/Smith: .
• Victim's Own Act can play part - R v Roberts/Williams.
• A natural and unpredictable event should be considered.
• Thin Skull Rule; a person must “Take your victim as you find them" (R v Blaue).

Mens Rea of S.20 GBH

• Mens Rea: With S.20 only having to intend or be reckless to some harm (R v Mowatt).
  • Mohan 1975: “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power, the prohibited consequence."
• Furthermore, there is risk of the consequence happening, and the defendant takes the risk anyway (Cunningham 1957).

Section 18 GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm)

• A defendant can be charged with GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm) contrary to Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Actus Reus of S.18 GBH

• Lord Hope (R v Burstow): For all practical purposes there is little difference between Actus Reus for Section 20 and Section 18.
• Eisenhower: “a cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin"
• DPP v Smith: “really serious harm"
• R v Brown and Stratton: “transgender father" "serious harm is judged objectively by a jury.”

Additions to GBH

• R v Bollam: "baby" "the jury are entitled to take into account the vulnerability of the victim.
• R v Burstow: "stalker" "serious psychiatric injury = GBH"
• R v Dica: "HIV" "biological GBH"
• Causation:
  • Factual causation utilizes the "but for test", demonstrated in R v Pagett.
  • Legal causation requires more than minimal cause, states R v Cheshire: “Substantial and operating cause"
  • Novus Actus Interveniens can come into factor - R v Cheshire/Jordan/Smith.
  • Victim's Own Act can play part - R v Roberts/Williams.
    • A Natural and unpredictable event should be considered.
• Thin Skull Rule; a person must “Take your victim as you find them" (R v Blaue).

Mens Rea of S. 18 GBH

• Intention to cause serious harm or intention to resist arrest
• (R v Taylor: intention to would will not suffice).
• Mohan 1975: “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power, the prohibited consequence.”
• Woollin 1998*: “was death or serious injury a virtual certainty? Appreciate?
  • Matthews & Alleyne: evidence for the jury to find that Person had The intent.

Murder

• A defendant can be charged with murder contrary to the common law which is defined by Lord Coke

Actus Reus of Murder

• The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being: -AG's Ref (1997): “a foetus is not a reasonable creature in being."
  • R v Malcherek: person brain dead not be concidered being alive.
• Causation:
  • R v Pagett: “but for test”.
  • R v Cheshire: “substantial and operating cause”.
• • R v cheshire jordan smith*.
• -R v william roberts*.

Mens Rea

• R v vickers: “it is enough that intends to cause harm”.

Diminished responsibility

• A defendant maybe beable to plead to to this defined in s.2 of the homicide act 1957 as amended by s.52 criminal justice act 2009.

Abnormality of Mental Functioning

• s.52(1)
• -r v byrne : “sexual psychopath".* -Intoxication irrelevant or relvant.. -r v dowds “intox alone cant use of DR” -the jury satisfied .a result of AOMF

Recognized medical

s.52(1)(a)
Medical evidence
Batarred woman syndrome.

Impair ability

understant nature of what to use.
     Exercise self contril

• not total but more than trivial

Explaonation from Killing

   there can be casually linked and AOMF to kill.

Loss of Control

• Loss of control is defined S.54 CJA 2009

Loss of Self-Control S.54(1)(a)

• Loss of the ability to act in judgement. Sufficient Evidnce. Require Accused bare assersion “R v ahluwalia. Acts in desire for revenge cant rely on it

Qualitative trigger s.54(1)(b)

A’s serious volicnce againsy or a another Incites valince The thing said or done , is extremly of grave or wrong character. It have to be onyectified and not satfies sexaul infiedilidy

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

• This defined DPP v Jones and Newbury
• Must be a crimil offense and cant be a ommision Identify define . Is a againdt the person then reky on battery or assault

2. Dangerous

• all sober and reasonable subject to harm from their and then is not serous. NEED NOT forever the harm Cases where dscing unlaw ful act. Sober adnd person .v’s faity them them liable. Assoult is subkected some phusal hamr

gross negligence manslaughter

  Adomako the test of duty of care in civil law applies.
   Donguevesns ,to injuries
  Reaosnable to care for that foreseee iujnure neighbuous so colseuly and directly.

INCHOATE OFFENCES - CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS

• D may be guilty of attempted _______ contrary to S.1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981. D does act act which is more than merely preparatory to that offesne.

THEFT

• guilty of theft contrary to S.1 Theft Act 1968.

Actus Reus

1. Appropriates Any right of the owner or any later assume Includes and later assumed Need not be eall the rights
2. proerty s.4(8) Theft Act 1968 Property includes oncluides money and all or real the persopnal including things in action act and other inantagble property Body parts

REBBERY

D may be guouluotu fo rebbotu cuontary to s . Act

actous recus

Completed threat Forze force amount of is a for jury to decice Robbery is the force when its not scared seek put of force. At te theft use is escape court prepared in act approperitation- MEND TO DEREIVE ALSO BE MENS REA to to use the steal.

Self Dedendce

s.75 criamnla juitice imgraton acr can founds in this .Force is necc

The Force use Propoioate person used may not be to weight to a nuceit or

DURESS

• Commn law in . Is a death of threat of death will commmitd the threat.

INSANEY

D may the general defence of insanity. commone defiend for . 01.Defect of reason: : Affects the the defedtands or faculirtes of the momoru and undertdignn

1. disease of m ind lgeal not .result of

AUTOMUSIM

common in Autumisom is acy done the the msuces withput any contorol by som is 2 .extrt cause of lack is external

INTOXACTION

a to be D so can from the for men 1 to to from to from for D and wheth if cant