Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Non-Fatal Offences - …
Non-Fatal Offences - AS Law Knowledge
Common Assault
Assault:
Common law offence charged under S.37 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Actus reus:
An act causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
It is stated that words are sufficient enough for assault
(R v Constanza)
It is stated that silence is sufficient enough for assault
(R v Ireland)
The victim must apprehend unlawful violence, if they do not apprehend it is not assault
(R v Lamb
)
The victim can apprehend immediate violence which includes the apprehension of violence in the near future as part of the current series
(Smith v Woking Police)
Words can also diminish the threat and the apprehension of immediate violence if stated there is no threat
(Tuberville v Savage)
Mens rea:
Intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence
This offence requires
basic intent
where a lesser degree of mens rea is sufficient for this offence.
Case authority:
R v Venna
Battery:
Common law offence charged under S.37 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Actus reus:
Applying unlawful force on another.
Can be applied directly. Simple act of touching is sufficient for battery or the touching of clothes if in an unlawfully nature (
R v Thomas)
Can also be applied indirectly
(R v Haystead) (R v Martin)
Mens rea:
Intention or recklessness as to applying unlawfully force on another.
This offence requires
basic intent
where a lesser degree of mens rea is sufficient for this offence, both intention and recklessness.
Case authority:
R v Venna
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH):
Statutory offence contrary to S.47 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
Actus reus:
The actus reus of the original common assault.
You must prove the original assault caused the ABH through causation and an unbroken chain, must establish both factual and legal causation.
The level of injury must be more than merely trivial and wholly insignificant to be sufficient for ABH (Chan Fook)
Can include Psychatric harm but must be more then mere emotions and fear, which can be proven by medical evidence.
Is more then flesh and bone as in DPP v Smith it can also be hair.
Mens rea:
Is the mens rea for the original assault , the offence requires basic intent so both intention and recklessness are sufficient. (R v Venna)
Malicious Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH):
Statutory offence contrary to S.20 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
Actus reus:
An act unlawfully wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm on another .
Wounding:
Is a break in the continuity of the whole skin. Both layers must be broken for it to suffice.
(JCC v Eisenhower
)
GBH
: Is defined as serious harm (
R v Saunders)
The vulnerability of a victim can determine whether the harm is considered serious. such as the size and age of the victim. E.g a baby
(R v Bollam
)
A collection of smaller injuries occurring in one act can amount to serious harm (
R v Brown & Stratton
)
Psychiatric harm can amount to GBH if proved by medical evidence to of sufficient level (
R v Burstow
)
Serious harm can be caused by biological harm
( R v Dica
)
Mens rea:
Intentionally or recklessly unlawful wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm on another.
For S.20 it is only needed for the defendant to intend or be reckless as to causing some harm. It is not needed to prove serious harm is intended.
(R v Mowatt
)
This offence requires
basic intent
where a lesser degree of mens read is sufficient.
Recklessness is where the defendant foresaw the risk of the prohibited out come but took it anyway.
(R v Cunningham
)
Malicious Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent (GBH):
Statutory offence contrary to S.18 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
Actus reus:
An act unlawfully wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm on another.
Wounding:
JCC v Eisenhower
#
GBH:
R v Saunders
#
Mens rea:
Intentionally unlawful wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm on another.
For S.18 it is needed for the defendant to intend serious harm any thing less will not suffice . (R v Belfon)
This offence requires specific intent, where only the highest degree of mens rea will suffice.