Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Non-Fatal Offences (ASSAULT , BATTERY , ABH , GBH / WOUNDING , AR:
…
Non-Fatal Offences
-
-
-
-
AR:
Causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force
-- Logdon v DPP -- "apprehend" is where V believes force will be applied, even if it is impossible for it to happen
-- Smith v SWPS -- "immediate" means 'in the near future'
-- Read v Coker -- actions/gestures can be an assault
-- R v Ireland -- things said (or not said) can be an assault
-- R v Constanza -- written words can be an assault
-- Tuberville v savage -- words can negate what would otherwise have been an assault
MR:
- Direct intention as to cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful force OR
- recklessness as to cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful force
MR -
-- Mohan -- direct intention is aiming to cause the prohibited consequence
-- R v Cunningham -- recklessness is where D realises a risk of harm but carries on regardless
AR:
the application of unlawful force onto another person / V
-- R v Thomas -- the slightest touch / touch through clothing can both be a battery
-- Wilson v Pringle -- force must be 'hostile' and so must be unwanted or aggressive in some way
WILSON V PRINGLE ALSO SHOWED THAT force which is applied in the 'ordinary jostlings of everyday life' is NOT unlawful as there is an assumption of implied consent
AR:
-- Fagan v MPC -- force can be applied through a continuing act
-- DPP v K -- force can be applied indirectly (ie. via an object)
-- DPP v santana-bermudez -- battery can be through an omission
MR:
intention or recklessness as to apply unlawful force onto another person
- Mohan = direct intention
- cunningham = recklessness
AR: s47
an assault or battery which causes the victim actual bodily harm (identify which it is (assault OR battery OR both = common assault)
the AR for these separate offences, as described above, must be explained before the AR of ABH
All that is required for the actual AR for the ABH is that 'D's assault or battery must CAUSE V's ABH'
CAUSATION
- Factual causation (but for test) - would V have suffered but for D's conduct?
- Legal causation (operative and substantial, ie significant, test) - was D's conduct the operative and substantial cause of V's harm?
- Factual causation
-- R v Pagett --
- Legal causation
-- R v Smith --
- More than minimal
-- R v Cheshire --
THEN, ABH CAUSATION =
-- R v Miller --
ABH is 'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the comfort or health of the victim'
-- R v Chan Fook --
to be ABH, harm must not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant
CHAN FOOK ALSO SHOWED THAT ABH includes psychiatric injury, but not mere emotions
-- R v Smith -- cutting of someone's hair without their consent = ABH
-- T v DPP -- even a temporary loss of consciousness can amount to ABH
MR:
this will be the same as for whatever caused the ABH (ie. MR for assault or MR for battery) as identified in the AR
-- R v Savage -- showed that there was no extra MR for ABH
- Direct intention (for assault OR battery) = Mohan
- Recklessness (for assault OR battery) = Cunningham
s18 and s20 for BOTH offences
WOUNDING AR is to unlawfully wound another person
-- JCC v Eisenhower -- a wound is defined as a cut or break in at least 2 layers of outer skin (does not include internal bleeding)
GBH AR is to cause GBH to another person
-- DPP v Smith -- GBH is just 'really serious harm'
GBH can include:
-- R v Burstow -- serious psychiatric harm can amount to GBH
-- R v Dica -- GBH can be serious biological harm
-- R v Brown and Stratton -- GBH can be an accumulation of minor injuries
-- R v Bollom -- V's age and health should be taken into consideration when deciding if an injury can amount to GBH or not
D must CAUSE V's wound:
- factual causation with BUT FOR and Pagett
- legal causation with OPERATIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL and Smith
D must also cause V's GBH:
- both as above
HOWEVER, -- R v Martin -- shows that GBH can inflicted indirectly (ie. D doesn't have to touch V to cause GBH)
MR for WOUNDING s20:
Direct intention or recklessness as to cause SOME harm
(Mohan, Cunningham)
-- R v Mowatt --
MR for WOUNDING s18:
Direct or oblique intention as to cause SERIOUS harm
-- R v Belfon --
(Mohan, Woolin) - oblique intention test is as follows:
- was harm to V a virtual certainty? AND
- did D realise this?
MR for GBH s20:
Direct intention or recklessness as to cause SOME harm
(same as wounding)
MR for GBH s18:
Direct or oblique intention as to cause SEROUS harm
(same as wounding)
EXTRA GBH MR CASE
-- R v Parmenter -- D neither intended nor was reckless in causing harm to V, so V didn't have the MR for either GBH crime