Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

25 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Actus Reus of assault
any act which causes the victim to apprehend an immediate infliction of violence. There is no need for any physical contact between the defendant and the victim.
Logdon v DPP
D, as a joke, pointed a gun at the victim who was terrified until she was told that it was replica. Held: V had apprehended immediate physical violence, and D had been at least reckless as to whether this would occur.
V must perceive the threat as one which can be carried out "there and then"
Smith v Superintendednt of Woking Police Station
D terrified a woman occupying a ground floor flat by staring in through the windows at her. Held: there was evidence to suggest that the V was terrified by the prospect of some immediate violence. It was not necessary for the prosecution to establish precisely what the V feared would happen; a general apprehension of violence was sufficient.
R v Ireland; R v Constanza
assault can be commited by words alone. But not in Tuberville v Savage
Mens Rea
D must intentionally or recklessly cause his V to apprehend the infliction of immediate force. (Cunningham test - subjective)
Battery - Actus Reus
infliction of unlawful force by one person upon another.
Wilson v Pringler
for battery the "touching must be proved to be a hostile touching"
Mens Rea of battery
R v Venna - "the element of mens rea in the offence of battery is satisfied by proof that D intentionally or recklessly applied force to the person of another". Recklessness - Cunnigham test
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm s. 47 of the OAPA - ACTUS REUS
The actus reus - is an assault, occasioning bodily harm.
R v Roberts
D gave a lift in his car, late at night to a girl. He made unwanted advances of a sexual nature to her. She feared - opened the door and jumped out suffering grazing and concussion. D convicted under s. 47 - the test for causation in law was to ask whether the result was the reasonably foreseeable consenquence of what D was saying or doing.
R v Chan-Fook
harm is a synonym for injury.
The court also held that "bodily harm" is not limited to harm to the skin, flesh and bones. It includes the organs, nervous system and brain. Accordingly, it can include psychiatric injury.
R v Ireland
D made repeated silent telephone calls to 3 women, as a resullt of which they suffered psychiatric injuries.
R v Constanza

(Stalking - Harrassment Act 1997)
800 letters, drove near her house - it was an important factor that D lived near V and she thought that something could happen at any time.
Mens Rea of the assault occasioning ABH
mens rea of common assault(intention or recklessness) No mens rea is required as to causing ABH.
Maliciously wounding or maliciously inflicting GBH - S. 20 - ACTUS REUS
Wounding requires ther to have been a break in the surface of the skin.
R v Saunders - GBH - "serious harm"
- requiring proof of causation
R v Martin
D blocked the exit doors of a theatre, put out the lights in a passageway and shouted "Fire!". Panic - many were severely injured
R v Wilson
D motorist had been involved in an argument with a pedestrian - punched the pedestrian - Held: D can inflict - by doing something, intentionally, which, although it is not itself a direct application of force to the body of the victim, so that he suffers GBH.
Stalker could be convicted of an offence of unlawfully and maliciously inflicting GBH, even where he had not applied physical violence directly or indirectly to the body of the victim
R v Burstow - V was badly affected that campaign of harassment, she was fearful of personal violence and a consultant psychiatrist stated that she was suffereing from a severe depressive illness.
Mens Rea
"maliciously" - it is sufficient to prove that he intended his act to result in some unlawful bodily harm to some person, albeit of a minor nature, or was subjectively reckless as to the risk that his act might result in such harm. -
R v Mowatt
DPP v Parmenter
D had caused injury to his young baby by tossing him about in a way which would have been acceptable with an older child, but not with one so young. He did not realise that he might cause harm by this action - not guilty.
Maliciously wounding or causing GBH with intent - S. 18
Actus reus - same as under s. 20, the word "causing" - R v Mandair - "causing is wider or at least not narrower than the word inflict".
Mens Rea
D must be malicious but in addition he must be proved to have had a further specific intent: 1.
to do some GBH to V
2. to resist or prevent a lawful arrest or detention. R v Belfon