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
Reading...
Front

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

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/19

Click to flip

19 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)

Assault


-actus reus
-immediate violence


-silent calls


Ireland (1997)


Defendant terrorised the victim, who suffered psychiatric injury, with silent phone calls.



Immediacy was found in the phone calls and verbal contact made by the defendant. The victim may fear the purpose of the call was to establish whether she was at home.

Assault


-Actus reus


-An act


800 letters



Constanza (1997)


Defendant stalked the victim, sending her over 800 letters in a period of four months. It was held the content of the letters were assaults as the victim read them as threats.

Assault
sword fight


Tuberville v savage (1669)

Tuberville was insulted by comments made by Savage and placed his hand on his sword, stating 'If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you..'. Savage tried to sue Tuberville for assault.It was held in this instance, that words can make clear an assault is not going to take place. Tuberville had made clear he would not take action as the criminal judges were in town.

Assault


mens rea

Cunningham (1957)

Defendant removed gas meter from an empty house to steal money from it. This caused a gas leak, which seeped next door. The victim, a woman who lived next door, became ill and her life was endangered by the gas. The court found that to have the necessary mens rea the defendant must either intend the consequence or realise that there was a risk of the consequence happening and decide to take that risk

Battery


-Actus reus


-unlawful physical force
-lord Goff

Collins v Wilcock (1984)

Defendant, a police officer, had taken hold of the victim’s arm in order to detain her but with no intention to arrest her.


Lord Goff: '..The fundamental principle, plain and incontestable is that every person’s body is inviolate. It has long been established that any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to a battery... '.

Battery


-Actus reus


-Indirect acts

Haystead (2000)

Defendant punched his girlfriend, causing her to drop her baby onto the floor. Defendant was guilty of battery on the baby. Defendant would also have been guilty under the principle of transferred malice. Omissions

Battery


-actus reus


-omission

Santana Bermudez (2004)

Defendant injured the victim, police officer, by allowing her to search him, knowing he had hypodermic needles in his pockets. The court found his failure to warn her about the danger was sufficient actus reus for battery. 2

Battery


-mens rea

Latimer (1886)

Defendant aimed to a attack a men with a belt in a pub. The belt bounced off the man and struck the victim. Defendant was guilty of battery although he had not meant to hit the victim. Defendant had sufficient mens rea to hit the man with his belt and this was transferred to the victim. The act on the victim satisfied the actus reus of battery.

Offences against the person act 1861 -S47


-Actual bodily harm


-Actus reus


- husband,rape and ABH

Miller (1954)

Defendant's wife had left him and petitioned for divorce. Victim alleged defendant had sexual intercourse with her against her will and she was left in a hysterical and nervous condition as a result of his actions. Defendant was charged with rape and ABH. Defendant relied on the marital consent exception to rape (exemption overturned in R v R [1991] ). He further argued that nervous shock does not amount to a bodily injury necessary for ABH.

Court found defendant was liable for ABH. Stating: '..Actual bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim.. [providing it is more than] transient and trifiling...

Offences against the person act 1861 -S47


Actual bodily harm


pony tail cut

Smith (2006)

Defendant went to the home of his former girlfriend, the victim, and cut off her pony tail. He was guilty of ABH. So this case means the definition of 'bodily 'was extended to include a person’s hair.

Offences against the person act 1861 -S47


Actual bodily harm


-sulfuric hand dryer

DPP v K (1990)

Defendant, a 15 year old boy, left a chemistry class with test tube of sulphuric acid and went to the toilet block to conduct some experiments of his own. He heard footsteps, in panic he poured the acid into the hand dryer, intending to deal with it later. Victim used the dryer and the acid permanently scarred his face. Defendant was guilty of ABH, although he had not been directly present at the time the injury was caused.

Offences against the person act 1861 -S47


Actual bodily harm


Mens rea


-savage girl fight

Savage (1991)

Defendant intentionally threw beer at victim, ex girlfriend of her husband. The glass left her hand and cut the victim. The intentional throwing of the glass of beer was sufficient mens rea for the offence of battery. As a result of the act of the defendant something more serious, both factually and legally, occurred there is sufficient mens rea for the more serious offence.

Offences against the person act 1861 -S47
Actual bodily harm


Mens rea


-sexual advances

Robert (1971)

Victim jumped from a car in order to escape from sexual advances. The car was travelling between 2040mph. Victim was injured from jumping out of the car. Defendant had the mens rea to cause a battery, injuries were merely a consequence of this unlawful act and so there was sufficient actus reus and mens rea for a conviction under section 47.

Offences against the person act 1861-S20
Actus reus


wounding

JCC v Eisenhower (1984)

Victim hit by an airgun pellet in the eye and suffered internal bleeding. The court decided there was no wounding there was no breaking of the skin.

Offences against the person act 1861 -20
Actus reus


Grievous bodily harm
- baby bruises

Bollom (2004)

Defendant caused several bruises to a 17 month old baby. The Court of Appeal held the victim’s age was relevant in deciding whether an injury amounted to GBH.

Offences against the person act 1861 -20
Actus reus


Grievous bodily harm


-HIV

Dica (2004)

Defendant had sexual intercourse with two victims, knowing he was HIV positive. Victims contracted HIV as a result. Defendant was convicted of GBH

Offences against the person act 1861 -20


Mens rea


Grievous bodily harm


-savage girl fight

Savage (1991)

Defendant intentionally threw beer at victim, ex girlfriend of her husband. The glass left her hand and cut the victim. Defendant did not intend to cause serious injury but was reckless. The court confirmed 'maliciously' meant intentionally or recklessly

Offences against the person act 1861 -20
Mens rea


Grievous bodily harm


-eye shot

DPP v A (2000)

Defendant mistakenly shot the victim in the eye with an air pistol. Defendant and victim were playing a game where they agreed to shot each other below the knees. Magistrates dismissed the S20 charge on the basis that the defendant had not foreseen his action would cause harm and so had not acted 'maliciously'. Prosecutors appealed on the grounds that 'maliciously' had been wrongly applied and that the defendant’s act was malicious if he foresaw harm might occur. Divisional Court allowed the appeal and confirmed foreseeing harm might occur is sufficient for mens rea of 'maliciously'.

Offences against the person act 1861 -S18
Mens rea


grievous bodily harm


-razor slash


Belfon (1976)

Defendant had slashed the victim with a razor. Victim sustained severe wounds to his face and chest. The court held it was essential to prove specific intent. References to the defendant foreseeing that such harm was likely to result or that he had been reckless as to whether such harm would result, would be insufficient.