Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Chapter 22: Non-fatal offences against the person (22.1 Common assault (22…
Chapter 22: Non-fatal offences against the person
22.2 Section 47 OAPA 1861: assault occasioning actual bodily harm
22.2.1 Actus reus of s47
22.2.2 Mens rea of s 47
22.1 Common assault
22.1.1 Definition of assault
Assault is an act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force with either and intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence recklessness as to whether such fear is caused.
22.1.2 Actus reus of assault
An 'act'
An assault requires some act or words. an omission is not sufficient to constitute an assault.
However words can be sufficient for an assault, which can be verbal or written, in the case of
Constanza 1997
where the defendant had written 800 letters and multiple phone calls.
Silent phone calls can also be assault in the case of
R v Ireland 1997
.
'Apprehend immediate unlawful force'
The important point is that the act or words must cause the victim to apprehend that immediate force is going to use against him.
In the case of
R v lamb
that if pointing an unloaded gun at someone is assault if they know that it is unloaded then they cant apprehend unlawful force.
In
Smith v Chief superintendent of Woking Police Station
where the D broke into the V's bedroom window on the ground floor and the V thought that the D was going to enter the room. This means that fear isn't a apprehension of unlawful force but the fact that she did not know what he was going to do next was what made her apprehend that force.
Unlawfulness of the force
22.1.3 Definition of battery
22.1.4 Actus reus of battery
Continuing act
Indirect act
Omissions
Unlawful force
Battery without an assault
22.1.5 Mens rea of assault and battery
22.3 Section 20 OAPA 1861: malicious wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm
22.3.1 Wound
22.3.2 Grievous bodily harm
22.3.3 Inflicting grievous bodily harm
22.3.4 Mens rea of s 20
22.5 Evaluation of the law need for reform of the law on assault
22.5.1 Out of date
In the cases of
Chan Fook
and
Burstow
bodily harm did not mean mental health which is now includes.
22.5.2 Inconsistency between offences
22.5.3 Need for modern, simplified language
Section 20 uses the work maliciously. in modern language this would mean acting deliberately and with ill-will to the victim. whereas in 1861 this means the D intended to do they type of harm or was reckless to it,
Cunningham 1957
. This is also the same in the case of
Burstow
about inflict and cause.
22.4 Section 18 OAPA 1861: wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent
22.4.1 Actus reus of s 18
22.4.2 Mens rea of s 18
Intent to do some grievous bodily harm