• 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

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




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;

26 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

What are the actus reus and mens rea of assault? Name a case that exemplifies assault.

AR: Causing V to apprehend the imminent threat of unlawful force

MR: Intention or recklessness

Case: Costanza

What are the actus reus and mens rea of battery? Name a case that exemplifies battery.

AR: Unlawful physical contact with V.

MR: Intention or recklessness

Case: Rolfe

What are the elements of a s47 offence?

Assault Occasioning ABH


1) Base offence of assault or battery, AND

2) The assault or battery caused ABH to V

What is the definition of ABH? Which case provides this?

"Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of V"

From Miller

Which case says that ABH will not be found where V's injury is merely "transient and trifling"?


Which case shows that purely psychiatric injury can qualify as ABH?

R v Ireland and Burstow

What are the AR and MR of a s20 offence?

Malicious wounding or inflicting GBH

AR: unlawfully wounding OR causing GBH

MR: Intention or recklessness as to SOME harm

What is the definition of wounding and which case provides this?

Break in the continuity of the whole of the skin.

From Moriarty v Brookes

What is the definition of GBH and which case provides this?

"Really serious bodily harm"

From DPP v Smith

Which two cases show that giving someone HIV amounts to GBH?

Dica; Konzani

Psychiatric injuries may amount to GBH, but it must amount to a recognized medical condition. Which case shows this?


For the MR of s20, intention or recklessness as to merely SOME harm will suffice. Which case shows this?


What are the AR and MR of a s18 offence?

Wounding or Causing GBH with Intent

AR: Malicious wounding or causing GBH

MR: Either

1) Intention to cause GBH, OR

2) Intention to resist arrest AND recklessness as to GBH

The MR of s18 requires intention to cause GBH, not merely an intention to wound. Which case illustrates this?


D stabbed V in the back. There was no intention that D had intention to cause GBH, so s20 instead of s18.

What are the two elements necessary for a defence of consent to assault/battery? What is the third element added for consent defences to s47, s20 and s18 offences?

1) V's consent must be expressed or implied to D

2) V's consent must be effective; V must have the capacity, freedom and information to make a choice

3) For s47, s20 and s18, the harm and conduct must come within a recognized category of harms that V can legally consent to.

What are the 4 issues determining whether V's consent was effective?

1) Did V have the mental capacity to consent? (Deals with age, mental handicap, drunkenness, etc.)

2) Was V's consent informed?

3) Was V's consent vitiated by fraud?

4) Was V's consent vitiated by duress?

If V is not fully informed as to the risks associated with the act. Name the leading case on this issue and its facts.


D had unprotected sex with V. D knew he had HIV but did not inform V of this. V's consent was uninformed and therefore ineffective. D guilty of s20 offence.

What are the three elements of an act about which V's consent may be vitiated by fraud?

Identity, Nature, and Quality

Richardson is a case dealing with fraud concerning identity. Give the facts and judgment of this case.

D was a dentist who had lost her license but continued to practice anyway. Charged with s47 due to patients' consent having been vitiated by fraud as to D's identity.

Held: D's misrepresentation had to do with her license being lost, not her identity as a dentist, which was factual. Therefore V's consent effective and D not liable.

Fraud regarding the nature of the act has been interpreted very narrowly. Give three cases showing this.

Bolduc v Bird: D, doctor, falsely told woman young man present during examination was a student. Held no fraud because not about nature of act.

Mobilio: D, doctor, inserted instruments into woman's vagina for no reason but pleasure. Held no fraud.

Boro: D, doctor, told woman he had to have sex with her to cure her. Held no fraud.

Fraud regarding quality of the act is the more likely way that V's consent will have been found to be fraudulently obtained. Give the name and facts of the main case for this type of fraud.


D convinced 3 women he was a doctor doing cancer research to get them to let him touch their breasts.

Held: Though Vs were not uninformed as to nature of act, they had been deceived as to its quality. Therefore consent ineffective.

What are the categories of activity under which V can consent to harm for s47, s20 and s18?

Sexual pleasure

Body modification




Religious flagellation

Which case is authority that V can consent to harm for both sexual pleasure and body modification, and what was the case about?


Case where D branded his initials onto V's bottom. Held that V could consent to body modification and harm for sexual pleasure.

In cases regarding sports, V can consent to harm that goes beyond the rules of the game, within a margin of appreciation. Name the case that shows this.


D missed sliding tackle and caused serious injury to V. Acquitted of s20 because V was held to have impliedly consented.

Which case shows that D can consent to risk of infection with STDs?


Held that V can consent to unprotected sex with an HIV+ person.

If the harm caused is higher than that to which V consented, their consent will still be effective unless D had intention or recklessness as to higher degree of harm. Give the name and facts of the case that shows this.


D and V had "vigorous anal sex" where V incurred ABH. D had no intention to cause ABH and was not aware that could even happen. Held V's consent still effective.