Criminal - Assaults, Defences, Consent

Front 1

Fagan v Met Police Commissioner (1969)

Back 1

Definition of simple assault: ‘any act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force.

Hint 1

Fagan accidently backed car over foot of officer. Then refused to move car off foot. Held, no ‘omission’ defence for Fagan for not moving the car, act of continual battery.

Front 2

R v Ireland (1997)

Back 2

Words alone can constitute an assault. Silent calls depend on facts, threat must be immediate.

Hint 2

For psychiatric harm under ABH, the condition must be medically recognised. Stalker would call victim and stay on the line silently. Caused psychiatric damage to victim. Held, guilty of assault under the circumstances.

Front 3

Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire (2000)

Back 3

For physical assault, force need not be directly applied.

Hint 3

Def punched mother carrying baby, guilty of assault of mother and baby.

Front 4

R v Miller (1954)

Back 4

ABH = ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim, a bruise or scratch will suffice.

Hint 4

Miller accidently set fire to mattress, didn’t take action, just moved to another room.

Front 5

R v Savage; R v Parmenter (1991)

Back 5

Mens rea for ABH: intention or recklessness as to the assault only, strict liability.
For GBH, only intent of some
harm required, not necessarily
full GBH.

Hint 5

Mrs Savage meant to throw beer in face of Mrs Beal, accidently let go of glass, and Mrs Beal suffered a cut wrist. Held, Savage guilty of ABH. For GBH, only intent of some harm required, not necessarily full GBH.

Front 6

Moriarty v Brookes (1834)

Back 6

A wound = two layers of skin broken, blood! (s.20 OAPA 1861)

Hint 6

Internal bleeds and bruising do not suffice (JJC v Eisenhower) Owner of pub wounded customer in an attempt to throw him out. Excessive force used, guilty of GBH.

Front 7

DPP v Smith (1961)

Back 7

GBH = really serious harm e.g. fractures, severe internal injuries. Ultimately up to jury to decide.

Hint 7

Def held down girlfriend and cut off her ponytail a few weeks before her 21st birthday. Held, def acquitted, no actual harm done, no evidence of psychological harm either.

Front 8

R v Burstow (1997)

Back 8

Severe psychiatric problems could amount to GBH. No need for direct or indirect application of force for GBH.

Hint 8

Stalker hounded his victim through silent phone calls, victim suffered severe psychological illness. Held, guilty of GBH.

Front 9

R v Dica (2004)

Back 9

Valid consent only if victim knows identity of def and nature and quality of the act.
(Defence of consent not available where deliberate infliction of GBH as in R v Brown)

Hint 9

Contraction of HIV through consensual intercourse, victim unaware of virus, assailant aware. Held, victims had not consented to full risks of HIV.

Front 10

AG Reference (1981)

Back 10

Consent a valid defence to assault when:
a) Surgical operation
b) Dangerous exhibitions
c) Properly conducted sport
A victim can consent to an assault or battery but not if the assault or battery causes harm.

Hint 10

Two youths decided to settle differences by fist fight. Held, no consent, not in the public interest.

Front 11

R v Barnes (2005)

Back 11

Criminal conviction reserved for sufficiently grave situations, dependant on facts. Assessed objectively. Type of sport, level etc. considered.

Hint 11

Victim sustained serious injury from tackle in a football match. Held, not guilty, threshold of criminal conduct not reached.

Front 12

R v Brown (1994)

Back 12

Consent can be a defence to ‘other unlawful’ activities. Sado-masochism however was too dangerous in this case, protection of health and morals of society cited. Case affirmed by R v Emmett.

Hint 12

Sado-masochistic homosexuals participated in consensual violence against each other. Held, convicted under s. 47 and s.20 OAPA. Appeal dismissed by ECHR.

Front 13

R v Williams (1984)

Back 13

Objective: force must be reasonable
Subjective test: Def is judged on the facts as he believes them to be, even if honestly held belief is unreasonable

Hint 13

.M saw youth rob woman, knocked youth to ground, last part seen by A on bus. A challenged M who said he was Policeman. A punched M, charged with assault. Held, acquitted, honest mistake.

Front 14

R v Martin (2002)

Back 14

Psychiatric evidence not admissible, but, Privy Council case permitted physical evidence in self-defence case, Shaw v R.

Hint 14

Norfolk farmer shot dead burglar in his home, argued that he suffered from paranoid disorder so perceived a greater danger. Held, psychiatric evidence not admissible.

Front 15

R v Dodson (1850)

Back 15

Def cannot rely on facts of which he was unaware in deciding whether or not he used reasonable force.

Hint 15

Whether identification by means of photographs by the jury was acceptable.

Front 16

R v Graham (1982)

Back 16

Defence of duress, def must:
a) Reasonably believe threat against himself or another
b) Person of reasonable firmness sharing the def characteristics would also give way

Hint 16

Appellant lived in a flat with his wife, Mrs Graham, and his homosexual lover, Mr King. The appellant suffered from anxiety attacks. King violent disposition and both the appellant and his wife were frightened of him. Appellant helped King kill wife, pleaded duress. Held, conviction upheld.

Front 17

A v UK (1998)

Back 17

New provisions in 2005 on reasonable chastisement. Mild smacking a defence under common assault. Not applicable for cuts and bruises etc. or under OAPA.

Hint 17

9 year old boy beaten by stepfather with a cane, bruised. Stepfather acquitted of ABH under defence of reasonable chastisement. Held, ECHR found in favour of boy.