Non-Fatal Offences

Front 1

Assault

Back 1

Common law offence
s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
summary offence
max sentence 6months imprisonment or fine

Front 2

Longdon v DPP (1976)

Back 2

Assault
Defendent pointed unloaded gun at victim
D has been reckless as to whether this would scare the victim

Front 3

R v Ireland, Burstow (1997)

Back 3

Assault
words can amount to assault
silent phone calls

Front 4

Constanza (1997)

Back 4

threatening letters can amount to assault

Front 5

Tuberville v Savage (1669)

Back 5

words can also take away liability for assault
put hand on sword and said "if it were not assize time I would not take such language from you"
threat was hand on sword but he said it was assize time, words took away liability for the assault.

Front 6

Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police station (1983)

Back 6

threat has to be immediate but can be interpretated liberally.
someone watched girl in nightdress, tresspassing on property, door locked and behind window, was sufficently immediate for an assault

Front 7

R v Savage, Parmentor (1992)

Back 7

mens rae of assault defined in this case
D must of have either intended to cause the victim fear the infliction of immediate and unlawful force and must have forseen the risk that such fear would be created (subjective recklessness)

Front 8

Battery

Back 8

common law
s.39 of the crimminal Justice Act 1988
summary offence
max 6 month sentence or fine

Front 9

Collins v Wilcock (1984)

Back 9

the actus reus of battery - unlawful physical force on another
certain amount of physical force happens in daily life
walking down the street you might get hit - force must be unlawful

Front 10

Haysted v DPP (2000)

Back 10

application of force doesnt have to be direct in battery.
D punched woman and she dropped her child
indirect battery of the child

Front 11

Fagan V metropolitan Police commissioner (1969)

Back 11

police foot - when asked to move he didn't
the force was applied indirectly by the car driving on the officer's foot and was unlawful when he refused to move.

Front 12

Thomas (1985)

Back 12

Battery - the term physical force implies high level of force needed but this isn't the case.
touching the hem of a girl's skirt whilst she is wearing it is the same as touvhing the girl herself.
victim doesn't need to be aware that they are about to be struck. if someone is struck from behind it will still constitiute as battery.

Front 13

DPP V Sanatanna-Bermudez (2004)

Back 13

unlike assault battery can be commited like omission.
D was asked by a police officer searching whether he had any needles or sharps he failed to inform her
and she got pricked by a needle when searching D.
failure to inform officer was sufficent to satisfy the actus reus.

Front 14

R v Venna (1976)

Back 14

The mens rea of battery is intention or subjective recklessness to apply unlawful force on another as confirmed in this case.

Front 15

Actual bodily harm

Back 15

s.47 Offenes against the person Act 1861 which it provides it is an offence to commit an assault occassioning actual bodily harm.
statute only refers to assault but can be battery.
triable either way offence
max 5 years imprisonment.

Front 16

R v Roberts (1971)

Back 16

The chain of causation therefore needs to be established between D's act and teh harm caused.
a man was making sexual advances towards a girl so she jumped out of the car.
it was stated in this case that the victim's reaction did not break the chain of causation if it was reasonably forseeable provided it was not so 'daft or so unexpected that no reasonable man could expect to foresee it'
constitute a novus actus interveniens

Front 17

Miller (1954)

Back 17

Actual bodily harm can be physical or psychological
definition of ABH "hurt ot injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort"

Front 18

DPP V Smith (2006)

Back 18

Actual bodily harm can include cutting someones hair.

Front 19

Chan Fook (1994)

Back 19

injury needs to be more than "transident or trifling" in ABH.
injury doesn't have to be permanent but should be significant.

Front 20

R v Savage (1992)

Back 20

The mens rae for ABH is the same as for assault or battery.
There is no requirement for extra mens rae in ABH.
wOMEN IN BAR, POURED GLASS OVER EX'S NEW GF AND GLASS SLIPPED AND CUT HER HAND.
as long as she had the mens rae for battery the mens rae for ABH is satisfied.

Front 21

Grevious bodily harm (GBH)

Back 21

S.20 Offences against the person act 1861
which provides it is an offence to mailicously inflict bodily harm or wound the victim.
triable either way offence
max 5 year improsonment.

Front 22

Clarence (1888)

Back 22

infliction of GBH has caused difficulty in the courts over the years.
term 'inflict' was given a very restrictive meaning.

Front 23

Dica (2004)

Back 23

meaning of inflict was widenened to include recklessly infecting others with HIV to an unaware victim.

Front 24

R v Halliday (1889)

Back 24

GBH - term inflict, wide approach used.
Husband scared wife so much that she jumped out a window.
her injuries had been directly inflicted by D even though she voluntarily jumped out the window.

Front 25

R v Bollum (2003)

Back 25

established that age and characteristics of the victim are relevent to the injuries sustained in GBH.

Front 26

Moriarty v Brooks (1834)

Back 26

GBH - A wound requires a breaking in the continuity of the skin usually resulting in bleeding.
It was held that both dermis and the epidermis must be broken.

Front 27

JCC (A minor) v Eisenhower (1984)

Back 27

GBH - an internal rupture of blood vessels in the victim's eye as a result of being shotwith a pellet gun was not held to amount to wounding within s.20.

Front 28

M`Loughlin (1838)

Back 28

GBH - A scratch ir break t0 the outer skin is not sufficent if the inner skin remains intact.

Front 29

Mowatt (1967)

Back 29

mens rae of GBH - Intention does not need to be proved to cause injury but just that he was reckless and intended to cause some physical harm.

Front 30

DPP V a (2000)

Back 30

mens rae for GBH further clarrifed, sufficent to prove that D intended or foresaw that some harm night occur it was not necessary to show D intended or foresaw that some harm would occur.

Front 31

GBH with intent.

Back 31

s.18 Offences against the person act 1861
offence to intend to maliciously wound or cause GBH
S.18 is an indictablr offence.
max sentence is life imprisonment. reflecting the gravity of s.18 in comparison to s.20.

Front 32

R v Ireland, Burstow (1997)

Back 32

Actus Reus for GBH with intent - is either maliouscly wounding or causing GBH.
it refers to the term `cause` as opposed to infli t as though they are the same.
causation is required, meaning of wound and GBH are the same.

Front 33

R v Belfon (1976)

Back 33

s.18 is a specific intent offence and requires intention to maliciously cause GBH, thus reflecting the severity of the injuries and culpability of the D.

Front 34

Changing standards

Back 34

The CPS issued these guidelines for offences against the person to ensure greater consistency.
details types f injury (e.g. black eye) and the charge that should follow if such injuries are present.