Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Non-Fatal Offences - Coggle Diagram
Non-Fatal Offences
s.18 and s.20 OAPA 1861
s.20 is a TEW offence that carries a max. 5 years imprisonment and s.18 is an indictable offence that carries a max. life imprisonment.
-
MR- Intention to cause some harm or recklessness as to whether some harm might occur- there is no need to prove any additional MR in relation to the wound/GBH (Mowatt; DPP v A)
-
wounding= continuity of the skin must be broken- internal bleeding is not a wound (JCC v Eisenhower)
GBH is interpreted as 'serious harm' (Smith; Saunders). Something the ordinary man in the street would regard as serious. It can include injuries that required lengthy medical treatment, lead to permanent disability or disfigurement, or the loss of a sensory function.
The jury can take into account the age and health of V when deciding if the injuries are serious as well as cumulative injury (Bollom)
GBH can include serious physical and psychological harm (Burstow) and the transmission of a serious disease (Dica)
s.18- Defined as unlawful and malicious wounding or causing GBH or resisting/preventing apprehension or detention from a police officer.
The AR for both offences are the same however if V is a police officer, you also have to prove D resisted/prevented the apprehension or detention of a person.
MR- requires evidence of intention to cause GBH (Direct- Mohan, or oblique Nedrick; Woollin; Matthews and Alleyne). If the jury are satisfied GBH was a virtually certain consequence of D's conduct and that D was capable of appreciating this. If D causes GBH to a police officer, then the MR changes from s.18 to that of s.20 plus D must also intend to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of any person (Morrison).
Assault
Common law offence, charged under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988, summary offence, max. 6 months imprisonment. Defined as 'intentionally or recklessly causing another to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence'.
Assault can be caused by words (Constanza), actions (Ireland) as Lord Sleyn said 'a thing said is a thing done'
'Apprehend' means believe; if V does not believe they will be subjected to violence, then it is not assault (Lamb). Even a fleeting belief will suffice (Light). There is also no need to prove D would be violent, just that V thought they would be (Ramos)
Immediate does not mean instant, it cant be a future threat but must be capable of happening in the immediate future. If V isn't sure where D is and what he will do, the term immediate is likely to be satisfied (Constanza; Smith v CS Woking Police
Words can negate an assault (Tuberville v Savage) and a conditional threat is not an assault (Read v Coker)
MR- D must have direct intent (Mohan) or recklessness (Cunningham) as to making V apprehend immediate and unlawful violence.
s.47 OAPA 1861- ABH
-
AR- Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The term assault covers both common law assault and battery (Burstow).
MR- the MR for the ulterior offence, there is no need to establish any MR for the ABH (Savage)
ABH can be physical or psychiatric (Ireland; Burstow)- ABH is an injury that is 'not so trivial that it would be considered insignificant' (Chan-Fook). An injury that 'interferes with V's health or comfort' (Miller).
If it is psychological ABH, it must be medically evidenced and it must be more than mere emotions such as fear, stress or panic (Chan-Fook)
Occasioning is an issue of causation. The assault or battery must be the factual and legal cause of the ABH
Battery
common law offence, charged under s.39 CJA 1988, summary offence, max. 6 months imprisonment. Defined as intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force of another
There is no need to prove V suffered any harm, any touching V doesn't consent to can amount to a battery (Collins v Wilcock). This can even include touching clothing (Thomas). It must be more than everyday touching as we impliedly consent to that.
Battery is usually caused by a positive, voluntary act, rather than an omission (Fagan v MPC) but it could be an omission in a situation where D had a duty to act (Santana Bermudez)
-
MR- D must have direct intent (Mohan) or recklessness (Cunningham) as to applying the unlawful force to another.