criminal law
S47 OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSONS ACT 1861
OCCASIONING
ASSAULT
ACTUS REUS OF S47
in savage 1991 the making of s47 indicated two meanings a assault occasioning ABH and a battery occasioning ABH.
three parts
occasioning} A matter of causation
Actual Bodily Harm} The consequence
Assault} The conduct, an assault or battery
ABH} is some type of harm that is more that trivial and can be physical or psychriatric
In the case SAVAGE 1991 it confirmed that assault occasioning ABH includes both assault and battery, which requiring both actus Reus and mens rea. This will include each and every part , so , eg , if there is consent to the battery it will be lawful and so cannot amount to ABH.
WILSON 1996} D branded initials on V.V required medical attention and D was charged with ABH. however the CA accepted that V had consented to the harm so D wasn't found guilty.
R v R } D convicted of rape and ABH. The HL followed CA's reasoning and confirmed there was no longer immunity based on consent for a man who assaulted and raped his wife
Means causing.S47 must show that both assault and battery caused the result (actual bodily harm).D's actions must have a significant contribution to the harm and not breaking the chain of causation.
In savage, the HL said that once the assault was established, the only remaining question was whether the victims conduct was the natural consequence of that assault, according to lord ackner occasioning 'does not involve inquiring into the accused state of mind' therefore it only realted to the Actus reus of the crime.
Actual Bodily Harm
In Chan fook 1994,the CA held psychiatric injury was enough but not 'mere emotions' such as fear,distress or panic.
In Dpp v Smith} The QBD held that cutting someone hair amounted to assault occasioning ABH. The QBD referred to both Chan fook and Burstow as it was held that 'harm' included hurt and damage and 'actual' that's its not trivial harm. 'bodily' harm applied to all parts of the body including hair, and her hair was cut so there was 'bodily harm'. Also the court held pain was not necessary for ABH
Ireland 1996} silent 'phone calls which caused psychiatric harm came under S47 also the immediacy of fear was wide-ranging.
MENS REA
Roberts 1971} D was found guilty as he ahs both mens rea and actus Reus for the battery caused to v ,plus harm had been caused.
savage v peramenter} throwing the beer with intent to do so was enough for battery.
Mens rea is intent or subjective recklessness as to the assault or battery only, not the harm.
If D has the mens rea for assault and additional harm occurs, it can amount to S47.
Assault(AR+MR of assault or battery) + Occasioning(AR, causation)+ Harm(AR consequence)
Make sure to explain causation
MENS REA OF S47
indirect intent} D appreciates that it is virtually certain that the V will fear violence, or D appreciates that the application of force is virtually certain
Subjective recklessness} D is aware of the risk of V being in fear, or is aware of the risk of force being applied, and goes ahead anyway
direct intent} causing fear of violence or the application of force is Ds aim or purpose