Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
48 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What Act are the offences of assault and battery contained in? What type of offence are they?
|
By s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, both assault and battery are summary offences dealt with by magistrates and carrying a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment and or a fine.
|
|
|
What is the common law definition of an assault?
|
An act by which the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.
|
|
|
What are the ways in which an assault can be committed?
|
An assault can be committed by written or spoken words, conduct, silence or gestures.
|
|
|
What happened in R v Constanza?
|
D mounted a hate campaign against V and, in over 20 months, sent 800 threatening letters, followed her home, wrote offensive words on her door, drove past her house and stole items from her washing line. D was charged with s.47 but appealed on the grounds that words could not constitute an assault- this was rejected.
|
|
|
What happened in R v Ireland and Burstow?
|
V ended a relationship with D which the latter could not accept; subsequently, D made silent and abusive calls among other things as part of a hate campaign over eight months. The HL held silence could amount to an assault.
|
|
|
What happened in Logdon v DPP?
|
D pointed an imitation firearm at V which terrified her.
|
|
|
What happened in Tuberville v Savage?
|
D put his hand on his sword and stated, "if it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you". It was held that this did not amount to an assault as the words indicated no violence would ensue.
|
|
|
What happened in R v Light?
|
D held his sword above his wife's head and stated, "if it weren't for that bloody policeman outside I would split your head open". It was held D's words did not negative as V still feared he would carry out his threat.
|
|
|
What did Smith v Woking establish?
|
D broke into a garden and looked through V's bedroom window, terrifying her. Although no immediate threat was posed as D was on the other side of a window, the court held V's fear of what D would do next was sufficient.
|
|
|
What was the judgment in R v Ireland and Burstow with regards to immediacy?
|
The HL in this case declared that phone calls, including silent ones, could constitute an assault as, in the modern age with mobile phones, the location of D is unknown, so D's fear of what will occur next is enough.
|
|
|
What happened in DPP v Ramos?
|
D distributed racist letters threatening a bombing attack. The trial judge held these letters lacked immediacy as no date or time was given; however, after the prosecution's appeal, the court held that if the V apprehended fear, immediacy was satisfied. It was an open threat.
|
|
|
What is the definition of a battery?
|
A battery is an act by which the defendant intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful physical force to another person.
|
|
|
What did Callow v Wilcock establish?
|
V, a police officer, grabbed D's arm to prevent her leaving when being questions and D scratched V's arm. D was charged with assaulting a police officer in the course of her duty. D appealed. Goff LJ stated there is implied consent for the interactions of everyday life (e.g. handshakes) provided only reasonable force is used. As there was no consent for the grabbing of the arm, D's conviction was quashed.
|
|
|
What happened in Donnelly v Jackman?
|
V, a policeman, tapped D on the shoulder to gain his attention and D subsequently assaulted V and was charged with assaulting a policeman in the course of his duty. D appealed and contested V's actions amounted to an assault but this was rejected.
|
|
|
What happened in R v Brown and others? What did this case establish?
|
The V's were charged with various offences under OAPA 1861 after injuries were sustained in homosexual sadomasochist activities. The trial judge ruled the defence of consent was unavailable in such circumstances as there was genuine hostility. The HL upheld this ruling.
This case established there must be genuine hostility in order to commit a battery. |
|
|
What must the severity force be to constitute an assault? What case established this?
|
The merest touch can constitute an assault.
This was said in R v Thomas where D, a school caretaker assaulted a 12-year-old by taking hold of her skirt. It was held that as there was nothing inherently indecent about the act, no battery was committed. In obiter, the court stated that touching a person's clothes was equivalent to toughing the actual person. |
|
|
What is an example of a battery committed by direct application of force?
|
R v Brown and others.
|
|
|
What is an example of a battery committed by indirect application of force?
|
DPP v Haystead, where D assault V by punching his mother, causing V to fall and hit his head. D argued a battery required the direct application of force however the court rejected this and stated indirect application was sufficient.
|
|
|
What is an example of a battery committed by omission?
|
R v Santana-Bermudez.
|
|
|
What is an example of a battery committed by continuing act?
|
Fagan v MPC.
|
|
|
What does the CPS charging code state with regards to the injuries of a battery?
|
Grazes,
Scratches, Swellings, Superficial cuts, Abrasions, Minor bruising, Reddening of the skin, A 'black eye' |
|
|
What Act contains the offences of ABH, GBH and WWI?
|
Under sections 47, 20 and 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Actual Bodily Harm (ABH), Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) and Wounding with Intent, as commonly regarded, are either-way and indictable offences, carrying sentences of up to five years (ABH and GBH) and life imprisonment, respectively.
|
|
|
What are the two definitions of ABH and what cases established them?
|
R v Miller- D raped and abused his wife causing her to be in a hysterical and nervous state and to petition for divorce. D was acquitted for rape under the marital consent exception (now overruled in R v R) but convicted for s.47. Lynsky J defined ABH as "any hurt or injury interfering with the health and comfort of the victim".
R v Donovan - D caned V for purposed of sexual gratification, which V consented to. D was therefore acquitted. The court defined ABH as "hurt or injury [that is]... more than merely transient or trifling." |
|
|
What did R v Chan-Fook establish?
|
D assaulted V after accusing him of stealing his wife's engagement ring. V suffered a fractured wrist and dislocated hip when trying to escape via a window. D was charged with s.47. The prosecution framed their care on the basis of V state of mind. The trial judge stated that the offence would be satisfied if the V suffered a hysterical and nervous state and D was convicted. On appeal, this was quashed as Hobhouse LJ stated mere emotion was insufficient for ABH- the psychiatric injury must be one of a recognised medical condition.
|
|
|
What did R v Ireland and Burstow establish with regards to bodily harm and psychiatric injury?
|
R v Ireland and Burstow confirmed R v Constanza in stating that bodily harm included both physical and psychological.
|
|
|
What did DPP v Smith establish with regards to ABH?
|
D severed V's pony tail after restraining her on a bed after an argument. The magistrates held that D could not be guilty of s.47 as the cutting of hair did not equate to a battery. The prosecution appealed and the Divisional Court held the cutting of a substantial amount of hair satisfied ABH.
|
|
|
What is the MR of ABH?
|
The MR of ABH is that of Intention or Cunningham recklessness. No further MR is required. This was established in R v Roberts and confirmed in R v Savage and Parmenter.
|
|
|
What does the CPS charging code state with regards to ABH?
|
Loss/breaking or tooth/teeth,
Extensive/multiple bruising, Minor fractures, Temporary loss of sensory functions (including consciousness), Displaced broken nose, Minor cuts requiring medical treatment (e.g. stitches). |
|
|
What is the statutory definition of GBH?
|
Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict grievous bodily harm upon any other person with or without any weapon or instrument.
|
|
|
What is the definition of GBH?
|
D gave a poisoned apple to his wife with the intention of killing her to allow himself to marry another. The wife took a bite and gave the apple to D's daughter, who then died. D was convicted under transferred malice and the court stated that excluding 'really' from "serious harm" was not a misdirection.
|
|
|
What is the definition of a wound?
|
D, a publican, struck V causing a cut below his eye after an argument involving payment. D argued force was lawful in ejecting V from his pub but the court held the force was excessive. Lord Lyndhurst defined a wound as "an injury... by which the skin was broken... and there was bleeding."
|
|
|
What happened in JCC v Eisenhower and R v Wood?
|
JCC v Eisenhower- V was hit in the eye by a shotgun pellet. This did not penetrate the eye but did cause severe bleeding below the surface. As there was no cut and the continuity of the skin was intact, it was held there was no wound.
R v Wood - V's collar bone was broken, but, as the skin was intact, it was held there was no wound. |
|
|
What does 'Inflict' mean? What case established this?
|
In this case, the court held that the word 'inflict' in the context of s.20 GBH meant the same as the word 'cause'; there was no further meaning.
|
|
|
What did R v Bollom establish?
|
D was convicted of s.18 for injuries including various bruises and abrasions on his partner's 17-month-old daughter. D appealed on the grounds that the jury shouldn't have considered the age of the V- this was rejected.
|
|
|
What is an example of physical bodily harm?
|
R v Brown and Stratton - Ds attacked Stratton's father, who had recently undergone gender reassignment surgery, causing a broken nose, lost teeth, swelling to the face, lacerations to the eye and concussion. The Ds were convicted of s.20 after appeal.
|
|
|
Was is an example of psychological bodily harm?
|
R v Burstow, R v Dhaliwal.
|
|
|
What is an example of biological bodily harm?
|
R v Dica - D was diagnosed with HIV and proceeded to infect two women with the virus. D claimed both consented to unprotected sex while being aware of D's condition. The trial judge withheld the defence of consent on the grounds of R v Brown and others.
|
|
|
What is an example of direct GBH?
|
R v Brown and Stratton.
|
|
|
What is an example of indirect GBH?
|
R v Martin - D placed an iron bar across the exit of a theatre and shouted 'fire'. Several people were severely injured and D was charged with s.20. D contended s.20 must be a direct application but this was rejected.
|
|
|
What is and example of GBH by omission?
|
R v Dica.
|
|
|
What is the statutory definition of s.18?
|
Unlawfully and maliciously... wound or cause grievous bodily harm... with intent to do some grievous bodily harm... or... to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension... or any person."
|
|
|
What case established the ARs of GBH and s.18 are the same?
|
R v Ireland and Burstow.
|
|
|
What did R v Mandair establish?
|
D returned to his home in a temper and threw an acid-based cleaner at his wife which badly injured her face. The court held that in proving the AR and MR of s.18, s.20 is also satisfied.
|
|
|
What is the MR of s.20? What case established this?
|
R v Cunningham - D ripped the gas meter of the wall of an empty house to steal the money inside; this caused gas to seep into the neighbouring house, affecting V. The court interpreted 'maliciously' to mean either intention or recklessness.
|
|
|
What did R v Mowatt establish with regards to both s.20 and s.18?
|
D's companion had stolen money from V and V had seized D by the lapels and demanded to know where D's companion was- D struck V several times. Diplock LJ stated "it is enough that [D foresaw]... that some physical harm to some person... might result".
With regards to s.18, the word 'maliciously' has no meaning. |
|
|
What did R v Grimshaw establish?
|
V insulted D's boyfriend and D pushed a glass into V's face, causing V to lose his eye. The court held it was a misdirection to state that D 'should have foreseen' the risk of some harm.
|
|
|
What did R v Adaye establish?
|
D was informed by his wife that she had HIV. Soon afterwards, D started an affair with V who was subsequently infected and D was convicted of s.20. D was not sure he had HIV but the court stated he might be reckless as to whether he did in committing the offence.
|
|
|
What is the CPS charging code for s.20 and s.18?
|
-Injury resulting in permanent disability or loss of sensory function
-Which results in permanent, visible disfigurement; broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull -compound fractures, broken cheekbone, jaw, ribs etc.. -Injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion -injuries resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity -psychiatric injury |
