Criminal Law - 5 - Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person

Front 1

s20 Offences against the Person Act 1861

Back 1

1. Malicious Wounding
2. Maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm

Front 2

s18 Offences against the Person Act 1861

Back 2

1. Maliciously wound or cause any grievous bodily harm with intent to do some grievous boildy harm

Front 3

Actus Reus of assault

Back 3

Any action which causes the victim to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful force

Front 4

Can words alone constitute an assault? What is the relevant case?

Back 4

Yes.

R v Ireland (1997)

Front 5

Courts presume that peope consent to the anticipatable contact which occurs on a day to day basis.

What is the relevant case?

Back 5

Collins v Wilcock (1984)

Front 6

Touching a person's clothes can amount to a battery.

What is the relevant case?

Back 6

R v Thomas (1985)

Front 7

A batter can be caused by indirect use of force.

What is the relevant case?

Back 7

Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire (2000)

Front 8

How was 'actual bodily harm' defined in the case of Miller (1954)

Back 8

"Any hurt or injury likely to inferfere with the health or comfort of the victim"

Front 9

Actual bodily harm does include psychiatric injury but not negative emotions.

What is the relevant case?

Back 9

R v Chan Fook (1994)

Front 10

What is the mens rea for the offence under s47 OPA 1861?

Back 10

It is the same as the mens rea for assault & battery.

Front 11

What constitutes wounding for the purposes of s20 OPA 1861 and what is the relevant case?

Back 11

Complete break of all layers of victim's skin is required.

JCC v Eisenhower (1984)

Front 12

What does 'malicious' mean?

Back 12

Intentionally or recklessly

Front 13

What is the mesn rea for the offence under s18 OPA 1861?

What is the relevant case?

Back 13

It is a crime of intention only

R v Belfon (1976)

Front 14

Can oblique intent be applied to the s18 offence?

What is the relevant case?

Back 14

Yes.

Bryson (1985)

Front 15

R v Dica (2004)

Back 15

D is HIV positive and has unprotected sex with 2 women who become infected. He was charged with recklessly inflicting GBH contrary to s20 OPA 1861

Held: The fact that V consented to the act of sexual intercourse is not to be regarded as consent to the risk of consequent disease

Front 16

Consent to contact does not necessarily include consent to the consequences of the contact

Back 16

R v Dica (2004)

Front 17

R v Tabassum (2000)

Back 17

D lied to 3 women about conducting a survey relating to breast cancer. Women consent mistakenly believing he was a medical professional.

Held: Although women had consented to the nature of the act they had not consented to its QUALITY

Front 18

A mistake as to the nature or quality of the act may vitiate consent.

What is the case?

Back 18

R v Tabassum (2000)

Front 19

The mens rea of assault & battery can be satisfied by RECKLESNESS

What is the relevant case?

Back 19

R v Venna (1976)

Front 20

Grievous bodily harm means "serious harm"

What is the relevant case?

Back 20

DPP v Smith (1961)

Front 21

s20 OPA 1861 can be committed intentionally or recklessly.

What is the test for recklessness with this offence?

Back 21

Subjective.

Front 22

R v Constanza (1997)

Back 22

Man who sends threatening letters to woman he is stalking

Principle: An assault can be by words alone

Front 23

The Crown Prosecution Service's Charging Standards suggest a list of injuries which would constitute grievous bodily harm

What are they?

(There are 6)

Back 23

1. Substantial loss of blood
2. Permanenty disability
3. Permanent loss of sensory function
4. Permanent disfigurement
5. Broken or displaced limbs
6. Broken or displaced bones

Front 24

R v Williams (1987)

What are the facts?

Back 24

D watched someone be arrested by someone claiming to be a police officer and so assaulted him.

His appeal against conviction was allowed because he was judged according to his view of the facts. It did not matter that they were not reasonable.

Front 25

Is there a duty to retreat with self-defence?

Back 25

No, Bird (1985)

Front 26

With regard to self-defence, is the defendant allowed to make a "pre-emptive" strike?

Back 26

Yes.

AG's Reference (No 2. of 1983)

Front 27

Can self-defence apply if the motivation of the defendant is revenge?

Back 27

Possibly.

Relevant case is Rashford (2005)

Front 28

AG's reference no 6 of 1980

""it is not in the public interest that people should try to cause or should cause..."

Back 28

"... each other actual bodily harm for no good reason.."

Front 29

Consent to the risk of harm in sport is considered in the public interest

What is the relevant case?

Back 29

Barnes (2005)

Front 30

Consent to the risk of harm from "horseplay" is considered in the public interest.

What is the relevant case?

Back 30

Jones (1986)

Front 31

Serious harm or a wound + intention to do serious harm

What is the offence?

Back 31

s18 OPA 1861

Front 32

Serious harm or a wound + intentional or recklessness as to doing some physical harm

Back 32

s20 OPA 1861

Front 33

Serious harm or a wound + intention or recklessness as to the inflicting of unlawful force

What is the offence?

Back 33

s47 OPA 1861

Front 34

Actual bodily harm + intention or recklessnses as to inflicting unlawful force

What is the offence?

Back 34

s47 OPA 1861

Front 35

Infliction of unlawful personal force + intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful personal force

What is the offence?

Back 35

Battery