Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Non-Fatal Offences (S. 47 ABH (Cases (Roberts, Chan-Fook, DPP v Smith,…

- - - - Any injury that isn't permenant but must not be trivial that it would be regarded as insignificant (Chan-Fook)
      - Can include any injury that harms the health or comfort of the victim (Miller)
      - Can be physical of psychiatric but must be more than mere emotions such as fear (Chan-Fook) but must be clinically proven (Burstow)
      - Cutting hair counts as ABH (DPP v Smith)
      - Can be caused by an assault and the acts of the victim (Roberts)
      - Includes temporary unconsciousness (DPP v A)
- - - - Serious harm or really serious harm (DPP v Smith 1961; Saunders)
      - Something that an ordinary person would regard as serious
      - Jury may take into account the age and health of the victim (Bollom)
      - Can include the transmission of a disease (Dica)
      - Can be mental (Burstow)
    - - Continuity of the skin must be broken (dermis and epidermis) as internal bleeding is not a wound (JCC v Eisenhower)
- - - - An act which causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence
      - Can be cause by words (Constanza) or actions (Ireland)
      - V must apprehend violence and believe it will happen otherwise it is not an assault (Lamb). Even a fleeting belief will suffice (Light)
      - There is no need to prove that D would actually be violent (Ramos)
      - Words can suffice as an assault (Tuberville v Savage) but it depends on the situation (Light)
      - Words can stop an assault (Tuberville v Savage)
      - Silent phone calls can be assault (Ireland)
      - Constantly in fear is an assault (Ramos)
      - Words and actions can amount together to an assault (Wilson)
      - Violence does not have to be instant (Smith v Woking) and belief is all that matters, time does not (Logdon)
    - - Intention or recklessness as to causing V to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence
      - Must be the D's aim or purpose (Mohan) or be subjective reckless (Cunningham)
    - - Wilson
      - Read v Coker
      - Ireland
      - Lamb
      - Ramos
      - Smith v Woking
      - Constanza
      - Light
      - Tuberville v Savage
  - - - The application of unlawful force
      - No need to prove that any harm has occured
      - Slightest touching that V does not consent to can be a battery (Collins v Wilcock) as long as it is more than everyday e.g. crowd
      - Touching clothes counts (Thomas)
      - Usually arises out of an action (Fagan v MPC) but can be an omission (DPP v Santana-Bermudez)
      - Does not need to be direct (Haystead)
    - - Intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force
      - Must be the D's aim or purpose (Mohan) or be subjective reckless (Cunningham)
      - MR must be present but not the whole time (Fagan v MPC)
    - - Collins v Wilcock
      - Thomas
      - Haystead
      - DPP v Santana-Bermudez
      - Fagan v MPC