Criminal Law- non-fatal offences
R v Ireland; R v Burstow
D called woman mostly late at night but remained silent. the court had to look at whether this kind of conduct could form the basis of an assault charge. they held yes it can depending on the facts and the impact of the callers calls on the victim
Must establish AR and MR of the assault or battery
tuberville v savage
Words May Negate an Assault
Read v coker
a conditional threat may amount to assault
Logdon v DPP
- D brandished a gun at the victim and told her that he was going to take her hostage, he argued that he never intended to actullay take her hostage because the gun was fake
- The fact that he did not intend to carry out the threat or was incapable of doing so provided no defence; all that was needed was that the victim apprehended violence. Assault committed as soon as V apprehends imminent force.
smith
a woman look out of her window and saw a man standing outside it, the question was was this imminent or immediate as he would have to break through the window, climb in cross the room to get her
Ireland
the fear of the possibility of immediate personal violence
Constanza
- there was some silent telephone calls as well as 800 letters sent to the victim, the last two letters the victim took as clearly threatening them
-a fear of violence at some time not excluding the immediate future.
Venna
an assault can be committed recklessly
savage, parmenter
requires subjective recklessness
collins v wilcock
Everyday contact excluded
faulkner v talbot
Touching without consent or lawful excuse. Touching need not be hostile or rude
thomas
touching of clothing
lynsey
Somebody spat at a police officer so actual touching didn’t occur, there was an infliction of force, actual touching is not necessary
ireland
must be physical force
R v Martin
D blocks the exits to a theater and then sets of the fire alarms and turns off the lights and people panic and try to get out and get hurt while doing so
DDP v K
15 year old boy who takes some acid out of the science lab, he pours the acid into the hand dryer, someone uses the hand dryer and they suffer permanent scarring to their face.
Fagan
they said assault/battery cannot be carried out by omission
DPP v Santa Bermudez
D is going to be searched by police officers and they are asked to empty out all of their pockets and they remove some things, they were asked if they were sure nothing remained in their pockets and they answered yea, so the police officers start searching them and immediatly pricks her finger on a needle, and D is seen to smirk
R v Cook (alfie)
D attacks the victim by squeezing her neck he pushes her down onto a sofa, causing her to hit her head and then he gets on top of her and strangles her with both hands, he pleads guilty to one count of intentional strangulation, the court tells us we do not have to find physical harm as a result
R v Borsodi (alex)
D and hhis partner have been out at a party, D got quite drunk and they returned home. a neighbour started to hear agressive shouting and hears a distressed female voice, she goes to the kitchen window to see D with his hand on the womans neck pushing her with the other hand and she is holding a baby in her arms
R (T) v DPP
loss of consciousness
DPP v Smith
cutting off a ponytail
Chan-fook
ABH includes psychiatric injury but not mere emotions – must be an identifiable clinical condition – this was approved in Ireland; Burstow
Morris
psychiatric injury needs expert evidence
Dhaliwal
psychological harm needs to be identified psychiatric injury
moriarty v brooks
wounding means a break in the continuity of the whole skin
M'Loughlin
superficial cut is not a wound
JCC v Eisenhower
a rupture of an internal blood vessel is not a wound
morris
both layers must be broken
DPP v Smith
GBH means really serious bodily harm
Grundy
Totality of bruising could amount ot GBH
brown & stratton
seriousness judges objectively
bollom
impact of injuries on particular victim may be taken into account
dica
transmission of HIV
Golding
gential herpes- assessment of whether harm amounts to GBH and ABH is ultimatly for the jury
Mowatt
need only forsee some harm
taylor
conviction for unlawful wounding with intent quashed as judge had misdirected that an intention to wound or intention to cause GBH would be sufficient – had to prove an intention to cause GBH
Morrison
here D is grabbed by a police officer who is trying to arrest him and he dives through a glass window pain dragging the police officer through with him, she suffereed serious face lasserations from the glass.
- had to show D intended to resist arrest and intentionally or recklessly wounded or caused GBH
what is the definition of assault?
- D intentionally or recklessly causes V to apprehend imminent unlawful force
- Punishment s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 – triable in magistrates court - fine and/or 6 months max
what are the rules aorund D does something that causes V to apprehend immediate and unlawful force?
words, gestures and silence are sufficitent- R v Irelend; R v Burstow
Words May Negate an Assault - Tuberville v Savage
A conditional threat may amount to assault - Read v Coker
an empty threat will still constitute assault- logdon v DPP
what are the rules around immediacy?
smith- need not be immediate just imminent
a feat of violence at some time not excluding the immediate future.
what is the mens rea of assualt?
D intentionally or recklessly causes V to apprehend imminent force
venna- assault can be committed recklessly
savage, parmenter- requires subjective recklessness
what is the definition of battery?
- The intentional or reckless infliction of unlawful force
- Punishment – s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 – triable in magistrates court - fine and/or 6 months max
what is the actus reus of battery?
infliction of force
everyday contact is excluded- collins v wilcock
touching need not be hostile or rufe- Faulkner v talbot
touching of clothing- Thomas
Lynsey- actual touching is not necessary
irelend- must be physical force
can force be applied indirectly for battery?
yes- R v Martin, DPP v K
it can be carried out by an object- fagan
what are the rules around omissions for battery?
fagan suggested battery cannot be carried out by omission however DPP v Santa Bermudez suggected it can
what is the Mens Rea for battery
D intentionally or recklessly inflicts force
venna- rekclessly
savage, parmenter- intentionally
what is the definition of strangulation or sufocation?
- provides that a person (A) commits an offence if
- A intentionally strangles another person (B) or
- A does any other act to B that (i) affects B’s ability to breathe, and (ii) constitutes a battery of B
Punishment – on summary conviction imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, a fine or both; on conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, a fine or both
what is the mens rea of strangulation?
ntentional strangulation or mens rea for battery
R v Cook (alfie)- no requirement to prove any injury or harm as a result of the strangulation
R v Borsodi- a custodial sentence would ordinarily be imposed but that may be immediate custody or, in appropriate cases, custody may be suspended
what is the definiton of ABH?
- Section 47 Offences Against the Person Act, 1861
- Punishment – 5 years max
what is the actus reus of ABH?
- There must be an assault or battery which occasions ABH
- Ireland; Burstow– must establish AR and MR of the assault or battery
- Occasions– Roberts- causes
- Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) - Donovan, Miller
- Any hurt or injury that interferes with health or comfort
what are some examples of ABH?
- R (T) v DPP – loss of consciousness
- DPP v Smith – cutting off a ponytail?
- Chan-Fook -ABH includes psychiatric injury but not mere emotions – must be an identifiable clinical condition – this was approved in Ireland; Burstow
what are the rules around psychiatric injury and ABH?
- Morris – need expert evidence
- Dhaliwal
- ‘bodily harm’ for the purposes of the definitions of actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm includes an identifiable psychiatric injury brought about by psychological factors, i.e. a medically recognized illness (such as post-traumatic stress disorder, or battered wife syndrome, or reactive depression), but not panic or a hysterical or nervous condition
what is the mens rea for ABH?
- D must have MR for Assault or Battery
- R v Savage, Parmenter
- D need not intend or be reckless as to ABH
what are the CPS charging standards for ABH?
where there is a loss or breakage of teeth, loss of consciousness, multiple bruising, minor non-superficial cuts, broken nose, minor fractures, psychiatric injury.
what is the definition for malicious wounding/ infliction?
- Section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
- Punishment – 5 years
what is the actus reus of s20 GBH?
D must unlawfully wound or inflict GBH
what does wounding mean?
- Moriarty v Brooks
- A break in the continuity of the whole skin
- M’Loughlin - Superficial cut is not a wound
- JCC v Eisenhower - A rupture of an internal blood vessel is not a wound
- Morris - Wrong to suggest that the surface of the skin must be broken
what does GBH mean?
- DPP v Smith - really serious bodily harm
- Grundy - totality of bruising could amount to GBH
- Brown & Stratton - seriousness judged objectively
- Bollom - impact of injuries on particular victim may be taken into account
- Ireland; Burtsow - includes serious psychological harm
- Dica - Transmission HIV
- Golding – Genital herpes – assessment of whether harm amounts to GBH or ABH is ultimately for the jury
what does inflict mean?
- Cause and Inflict
- Ireland; Burstow
- for all practical purposes there is no difference between these 2 words
what is the mens rea of s20 GBH?
- D maliciously wounds or inflicts GBH
- Cunningham - Maliciously means intentionally or recklessly
- Savage, Parmenter - subjective recklessness required
- Mowatt – need only foresee some harm
What is the definiton of s18 GBH?
- "Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life."
- Punishment – maximum life
what is the Mens rea of s18?
1. D maliciously causes GBH with intent to do some GBH
2. D maliciously wounds with intent to do some GBH
3. D maliciously causes GBH with intent to resist or prevent .....
4. D maliciously wounds with intent to resist or prevent .....
- Remember maliciously means intentionally or recklessly
- Taylor - conviction for unlawful wounding with intent quashed as judge had misdirected that an intention to wound or intention to cause GBH would be sufficient – had to prove an intention to cause GBH
- Morrison – had to show D intended to resist arrest and intentionally or recklessly wounded or caused GBH