• 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

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/11

Click to flip

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;

11 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Intro

D may have committed battery under common law and charged under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 defined as “the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force”, as in ROLFE.

Actus Reus+IR

The ACTUS REUS is the application of unlawful force. The force need not be hostile but must not be consented to no injury is needed (THOMAS) but the force will be more than “everyday contact” (COLLINS v WILLCOCK .)



IF RELEVANT: direct physical contact is not needed as in DPP v K (acid in hand dryer) SAVAGE (throwing drink), and contact with clothing is enough THOMAS

Mens Rea

The MENS REA is intention or sub‘ective recklessness AS TO the application of unlawful force, as in VENNA

Mens Rea application

Here D [ CHOOSE ONE: EITHER D has specific/direct intention as to the application of unlawful force as she decided to bring about the particular consequence of unlawful force (MOHAN) OR D was subjectively reckless as to the application of unlawful force as D foresaw a risk of unlawful force and carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM)

Transferred malice

IF RELEVANT: “The transferred malice principle applies, where a crime intended for one person falls on another by accident, as in Latimer, so D will still be liable as the mens rea is transferred from X to V.”

Conclusion

TO CONCLUDE, D is likely to be liable as the AR and MR are satisfied

Collins v Willcock

A battery must be more than “everyday contact”.

Rolfe

A man exposed himself and moved towards the victim. He was convicted of indecent assault but this was not a battery as there was no direct or indirect touching of the victim

Thomas

A man committed a battery when rubbing the bottom of a woman’s skirt without her permission.

DPP v K

A 15 year old schoolboy committed a battery when he hid stolen sulphuric acid in a hand drier and another pupil was later sprayed with acid when he used the drier.

Savage

A woman wanted to throw beer over another woman in a pub, but the glass slipped and caused injuries. It was held that that there was an intention to commit a battery.