Non-Fatal Application Matrix PDF

**\[[Standard Introduction]. Write this at the start of any non-fatal application question.\]** The majority of offences do not result in death. There are 5 non-fatal offences against the person that need to be considered in relation to this scenario when deciding which offences [\[name of defendan...

**\[[Standard Introduction]. Write this at the start of any non-fatal application question.\]** The majority of offences do not result in death. There are 5 non-fatal offences against the person that need to be considered in relation to this scenario when deciding which offences [\[name of defendants\]] should be charged with. The law on non-fatal offences is contained in common law (for assault and battery) but also the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAP Act). Usually some unofficial plea bargaining can take place between offences so I will consider a range of offences with which each person could be charged. There are also the CPS charging standards which aim for some consistency with charging decisions. It will also be considered if any **defences** such as intoxication, automatism, self defence, etc apply. **\[THEN start with the first incident you come across in the scenario. Pick the relevant box of information. Write out the information in the orange text and apply it when it says APPLY TO THE SCENARIO. Always start by explaining and then applying the actus reus of your chosen offence, then explain and apply the mens rea. Then conclude on whether there is likely to be a conviction for that offence before moving on to the next incident.\]** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Assault:** | **Battery:** | | | | | Assault is a common law offence. | As with assault, battery is not | | The Criminal Justice Act 1988 | defined in an Act of Parliament; | | s.39 provides that it is a | it is a **common law** offence. | | summary offence with a maximum | S.39 of the **Criminal Justice | | sentence of 6 months imprisonment | Act 1988** provides that battery | | or a fine. | is a **summary offence** with a | | | maximum sentence on conviction of | | [The **actus reus** of | six months' imprisonment or a | | assault] is any act | fine. Though assault and battery | | which causes the victim to | are two separate and distinct | | **apprehend** the **immediate** | offences they can sometimes be | | **infliction of violence**, e.g. | charged together as 'common | | raising a fist, pointing a gun or | assault'. | | threatening somebody -- | | | ***[Collins v | [The **actus reus** of | | Wilcock.]*** It has | battery] is the | | also been held to include silent | **application** **of unlawful | | telephone calls (***[R v Ireland | physical force on another**. It | | and Burstow)]*** and | is accepted that a certain amount | | threatening letters | of physical force happens in | | (***[Constanza])*** | daily life (***[Collins v | | despite these not being | Wilcock]***), such as | | particularly immediate. Words can | walking down a busy street where | | also take away liability for an | people may bump in to one | | assault as was the case in | another. For it to be a battery, | | ***[Tuberville v | the force must be **unlawful**. | | Savage]*** where the | | | accused, who put his hand on his | The application does not need to | | sword coupled this with saying | be direct as in the case of | | 'if it was not for assize time, I | ***[Haysted v DPP]*** | | would not take such language from | where the defendant punched a | | you'. | woman causing her to drop her | | | child. It was held to be indirect | | The threat has to be immediate | battery of the child. Similarly, | | but this has been interpreted | in the case of ***[Fagan v | | liberally (***[R v Ireland and | Metropolitan Police] | | Burstow]*** and | Commissioner**,* the force was | | ***[Constanza])*** | applied indirectly by the car | | but also in the case of ***[Smith | driving on to the officer's foot | | v Chief Superintendent of Woking | and was unlawful when he refused | | Police Station]*** it | to move. | | was considered 'immediate enough' | | | that the victim was in her | The term 'physical force' implies | | nightdress in her downstairs | that a high level of force needs | | window behind a locked door when | to be applied, but this is not | | the defendant trespassed on to | the case. In the case of | | her property. | ***[Thomas]*** it was | | | held that touching the hem of a | | **[APPLY TO THE | girl's skirt was akin to touching | | SCENARIO].** Use | the girl herself. If someone is | | phrases such as.... | struck from behind this will | | | still constitute battery. | | - In this case, \[name of | Contrast this with assault where | | victim\] apprehends the | the victim must fear the | | immediate infliction of force | application of unlawful force and | | as (e.g. \[name of | so therefore must be aware of it. | | defendant\] \[bring in facts | Unlike assault, a battery can be | | e.g. threatens them with a | committed by **omission** where | | knife, raises a fist to punch | there is a **duty to act**. In | | them, scares them by jumping | the case of ***[DPP v | | out in front of them..... | Santana-Bermudez]*** | | etc\]. It is immediate | the defendant was asked by a | | because \[bring in facts\] | police officer searching him | | | whether he had any 'needles or | | [The **mens rea** of | sharps' on him. He failed to | | assault] is as | inform her (omission) and when | | defined in the case of ***[R v | she searched him she pricked her | | Savage, Parmenter | finder on a hypodermic needle in | | (1992)]*** is that | his pocket. It was held that his | | the defendant must have either | failure to inform her of the | | **intended** to cause the victim | presence of the needle was | | to fear the infliction of | sufficient to satisfy MR. | | immediate and unlawful force, or | | | must have seen the risk that such | **[APPLY TO THE | | fear would be created | SCENARIO].** Use | | (**subjective recklessness | phrases such as.... | | following the case of *[R v | | | Cunningham])*** | - In this case, \[name of | | | defendant\] applied unlawful | | **[APPLY TO THE | force on \[name of victim\] | | SCENARIO].** Use | by \[bring in facts\]. | | phrases such as.... | | | | - The force \[has or has not\] | | - In this case, \[name of | been directly applied | | defendant\] intended to cause | because...... | | \[name of victim\] to | | | apprehend the immediate | - The battery was committed by | | application of unlawful force | omission because \[name of | | because...... | defendant\] failed to...... | | | when under a duty to do so. | | - In this case, \[name of | | | defendant\] many not have | The [**mens rea** of | | intended to cause \[name of | battery] is | | victim\] to apprehend the | **intention** or **subjective | | immediate application of | recklessness** **to apply | | unlawful of force but he | unlawful force** on another as | | could be said to have | confirmed in of ***[R v | | foreseen the consequences | Venna]***. | | (recklessness) of the victim | | | apprehending force by the | **[APPLY TO THE | | action of \[include the | SCENARIO].** Use | | threat/facts\]. | phrases such as.... | | | | | **Conclude on whether there has | - In this case, \[name of | | been an assault. E.g. Therefore | defendant\] intended to apply | | it can be concluded that \[name | unlawful force on \[name of | | of defendant\] had both the actus | victim\] by \[facts\]. | | reus and mens rea of assault | | | when... \[bring in the facts\].** | - In this case, \[name of | | | defendant\] many not have | | | intended to apply unlawful | | | force on \[name of victim\] | | | but he could be said to have | | | foreseen the consequences of | | | the application of force | | | being unlawful because | | | \[facts\]. | | | | | | **Conclude on whether there has | | | been a battery. E.g. Therefore it | | | can be concluded that \[name of | | | defendant\] had both the actus | | | reus and mens rea of battery | | | when... \[bring in the facts\].** | +===================================+===================================+ | **S.47 Offences Against the | **S.20 Offences Against the | | Person 1861 -- Actual Bodily | Person 1861 -- Grievous Bodily | | Harm:** | Harm:** | | | | | The **statutory** offence of | The **statutory** offence | | actual bodily harm is set out in | of **grievous bodily harm** is | | ***[s.47 Offences Against the | set out in ***[s.20 Offences | | Person Act 1861]*** | Against the Person Act | | which provides that it is an | 1861]*** which | | offence to commit an **assault** | provides that it is an offence to | | **occasioning** **actual bodily | **maliciously inflict grievous | | harm**. Occasioning means to | bodily harm** or **wound** the | | bring about; cause. Although the | victim. Grievous bodily harm is a | | statute only refers to assault, | **triable either way** offence. | | the offence may also be committed | The maximum sentence for GBH is 5 | | by a battery. It is in fact far | years imprisonment, the same as | | more common for offences under | for the lesser offence of ABH, | | s.47 to be committed by battery | which has been criticised. | | rather than by an assault as the | | | application of force (battery) is | **[Actus reus of GBH] | | more likely to bring about | - Grievous has been d**efined in | | (occasion) actual bodily harm. | ***[DPP v Smith | | | (1961)]*** as 'really | | Actual bodily harm is a triable | serious harm'. This was confirmed | | either way offence. The maximum | in ***[Saunders | | sentence for ABH is 5 years | (1985)]***. GBH can | | imprisonment. | be proved by either showing an | | | infliction of grievous bodily | | [The **actus reus for | harm or a wounding of the victim | | ABH**] can be broken | and it is important to charge | | down into 3 elements | under the correct one. | | | | | 1\. **assault or battery** -- | 1\. **Infliction of GBH** -- The | | this has the same meaning as | term 'inflict' has caused | | for an assault or battery | difficulty in the courts over | | therefore either the defendant | the years. The general | | must have committed an act that | principle is that GBH is | | causes the victim to apprehend | 'really serious harm' (***[DPP | | the immediate application of | v Smith (1961).]*** | | unlawful force OR have applied | | | unlawful force on the victim. | In the case of ***[Clarence | | | (1888]***) the term | | 2\. **occasioning --** the | was given a very restrictive | | assault or battery must | meaning but this is now | | occasion i.e. cause actual | considered to be bad law. More | | bodily harm. The chain of | recently in ***[Dica | | causation therefore needs to be | (2004)]*** the | | established between the | meaning was widened to include | | defendants act and the harm | recklessly transmitting HIV to an | | caused (***[R v | unaware victim as being | | Roberts]***). There | 'infliction' of GBH. A similarly | | must be no novus actus | wide approach is demonstrated in | | interveniens. | ***[R v Halliday | | | (1889]***) where a | | 3\. **actual bodily harm -** | husband frightened his wife to | | this can be physical or | the extent that she jumped out of | | psychological harm as held in | their bedroom window to escape. | | the case of | The court held that her injuries | | ***[Miller]***. It | had been directly inflicted by | | can include cutting someone's | the defendant even though it was | | hair as per ***[DPP v | she who had voluntarily jumped | | Smith]***. The | from the window. | | definition of what constitutes | | | ABH has been clarified in the | **2**. **Wounding** -- A wound | | case of | requires a breaking in the | | ***[Miller]*** as | continuity of the skin. In the | | '**hurt or injury calculated to | case of ***[Moriarty v Brooks | | interfere with health or | (1834)]*** it was | | comfort'.** | held that both the dermis and the | | | epidermis must be broken, | | The case of ***[Chan | however, in the case of ***[JCC | | Fook]*** also makes | (A Minor) v Eisenhower | | the point that the injury needs | (1984)]*** an | | to be more than 'transient or | internal rupture of blood vessels | | trifling'. The word 'actual' in | in the victim\'s eye as a result | | this context means that though | of being shot with a pellet gun | | the injury does not need to be | was not held to amount to | | permanent, it should not be so | wounding within s.20. A scratch | | trivial as to be insignificant. | or break to the outer skin is not | | | sufficient if the inner skin | | **[APPLY TO THE | remains intact ***[M\'Loughlin | | SCENARIO]**. Use | (1838).]*** | | phrases such as... | | | | **[APPLY TO THE | | \- In this case there has been an | SCENARIO]**. Use | | \[pick assault or battery | phrases such as... | | depending on the facts\] that has | | | occasioned actual bodily harm. | \- In this case there has been an | | The actual bodily harm is | \[pick infliction of GBH or wound | | \[insert the injury\] as this | depending on the facts\] that | | would interfere with health or | would be considered 'serious | | comfort and is more than merely | harm'. - Also the CPS charging | | transient or trifling. - Also the | standards place this kind of | | CPS charging standards place this | injury under GBH. In addition, | | kind of injury under ABH. In | there is no novus actus | | addition, there is no novus actus | interveniens that breaks the | | interveniens that breaks the | chain of causation. \[Bring in | | chain of causation. (if none) | facts here to show either | | | infliction of GBH or wounding\]. | | [The **mens rea** of | | | ABH] is the same as | [The **mens rea** for | | for assault or battery. There is | GBH] is defined by | | no requirement to prove any extra | the word **maliciously**. | | mens rea for the actual bodily | Maliciously -- Is interpreted as | | harm as per the case of | meaning with **intention** or | | ***[Roberts | **subjective recklessness**. | | (1971]***). The case | | | of ***[R v Savage | The case of ***[Mowatt | | (1992)]*** confirmed | (1967)]*** | | this. In this case no the woman | established that it does not need | | intended to commit a batter of | to be established whether or not | | the new girlfriend by throwing | the defendant intended or was | | beer over her (application of | reckless as to the infliction of | | unlawful force). When she | GBH or a wound as long as it can | | accidentally let go of the glass | be proved that he intended or was | | which cut the new girlfriend, she | reckless to cause | | argued she did not have the mens | [some] physical harm. | | rea for this but the court | This was further clarified in the | | confirmed that as long as she had | case of ***[DPP v A | | the mens rea for battery | (2000)]*** where it | | (intention or subjective | was held to be sufficient to | | recklessness to apply unlawful | prove the defendant intended or | | force) or assault (intention or | foresaw that **some harm might | | subjective recklessness to cause | occur** and it was not necessary | | the victim to apprehend the | to show the defendant intended or | | application of immediate unlawful | foresaw that some harm would | | force) then that is sufficient | occur. The leading case is now: | | for ABH. | ***[R v Savage; DPP v | | | Parmente]***r that | | **[APPLY TO THE | confirmed this point. | | SCENARIO]**. | | | | **[APPLY TO THE | | \- In this case \[name of | SCENARIO]**. Use | | defendant\] has intended OR been | phrases such as... | | reckless to \[then pick either | | | assault or battery depending on | \- In this case the defendant has | | the facts and define that mens | intended or been reckless to | | rea\]. \[Use the facts to | cause some harm and it does not | | determine how this establishes | matter that he/she did not intend | | intention or subjective | or was not reckless to cause | | recklessness\]. It does not | serious harm. \[pick infliction | | matter that \[name of defendat\] | of GBH or wound depending on the | | did not intend to commit ABH as | facts\]. \[Bring in facts that | | long as it can be proved they had | support the intention/subjective | | the mens rea for assault/battery. | recklessness\]. | | | | | **Conclude on whether there has | **Conclude on whether there has | | been an ABH. E.g. Therefore it | been an GBH**. E.g. Therefore it | | can be concluded that \[name of | can be concluded that \[name of | | defendant\] had both the actus | defendant\] had both the actus | | reus and mens rea of ABH when... | reus and mens rea of GBH when... | | \[bring in the facts\].** | \[bring in the facts\]. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **S.18 Offences Against the | | | Person Act 1861 -- GBH with | | | intention (including resisting | | | arrest):** | | | | | | The **statutory offence** of | | | **[grievous bodily harm with | | | intent]** is set out | | | in s.***[18 Offences Against the | | | Person Act 1861]*** | | | which provides that it is an | | | offence to intend to | | | **maliciously wound** or **cause | | | grievous bodily harm** or **to | | | resist or prevent the lawful | | | apprehension or detention of any | | | person**. S.18 is an | | | **indictable** offence. The | | | maximum sentence for s.18 is life | | | imprisonment reflecting the | | | gravity of s.18 in comparison to | | | s.20. S.18 is a crime of specific | | | intent, meaning that it can only | | | be proved with intention as the | | | mens rea. | | | | | | S.47 and s.20 are both basic | | | intent offences as they can be | | | proved with either intention or | | | recklessness. | | | | | | **[Actus reus of | | | s.]18 -** Similar to | | | the actus reus for s.20, the | | | actus reus for s.18 is either | | | **maliciously wounding** or | | | **causing grievous bodily harm**. | | | It refers to the term 'cause' as | | | opposed to 'inflict' and though | | | they are not the same (***[R v | | | Ireland, Burstow | | | (1997)]***) they have | | | been taken to mean that causation | | | is required. The meaning of | | | 'wound' and causing 'grievous | | | bodily harm' are the same as for | | | s.20 above. | | | | | | **[APPLY TO THE | | | SCENARIO]**. Use | | | phrases such as... | | | | | | \- In this case there has been an | | | \[talk about the serious injury | | | on victim (name them) that would | | | be s.18 OR a resisting of an | | | arrest\] by \[name of | | | defendant\]. \[Name of | | | defendant\] has caused serious | | | bodily harm and this is supported | | | by the CPS charging standards. | | | There is no novus actus | | | interveniens that breaks the | | | chain of causation. | | | | | | **[Mens rea of s.18] | | | -** The key difference between | | | s.20 and s.18 is that s.18 can | | | **only be proved with intention | | | (direct or oblique)** whereas | | | s.20 can be established with | | | recklessness or intention to | | | cause some harm**.** | | | | | | The mens rea has 2 aspects: | | | First, the defendant must | | | '**maliciously' wound or cause | | | grievous bodily harm**.  | | | Secondly, the defendant must have | | | **specific intent to either cause | | | grievous bodily harm to the | | | victim or to resist or prevent | | | the lawful apprehension or | | | detainer of any person.** S.18 is | | | a specific intent offence (as | | | required by R v Belfon (1976))and | | | requires intention to maliciously | | | cause grievous bodily harm thus | | | reflecting the severity of the | | | injuries and culpability of the | | | defendant. | | | | | | **[APPLY TO THE | | | SCENARIO]**. | | | | | | \- In this case \[name of | | | defendant\] has clearly intended | | | to cause \[name of victim\] | | | serious bodily harm by \[bring in | | | facts\]. OR intended to avoided | | | arrest depending on facts. | | | | | | **Conclude on whether there has | | | been an GBH with intention. E.g. | | | Therefore it can be concluded | | | that \[name of defendant\] had | | | both the actus reus and mens rea | | | of GBH with intention under s.18 | | | when... \[bring in the facts\].** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **Defences** -- Here is where you would then consider any potential defences. INSERT these after we have learnt about the possible defences available. E.g. intoxication, self defence, insanity, automatism, etc. You may also need to consider issues such as **transferred malice.** **\[[Standard conclusion]. Write this at the end of any non-fatal application question.\]** Therefore, \[name of defendants\] could potentially be guilty of several non-fatal offences against \[names of victims\]. \[Sum up the above arguments\]. It is likely that plea bargaining could take place \[bring in an example\].