Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
non-fatals - Coggle Diagram
non-fatals
-
-
assault s39 CJA 1988
actus reus: causing the victim to apprehend immediate, unlawful physical force.
- it must be an act
- it must be an apprehension (Lamb)
- immediate= imminent (in the near future)
- can be words alone or even silence (Ireland/Burstow)
- it must be an unlawful force so self defence is okay
- joking is still an act IF the victim apprehends violence (Logdan)
- words can prevent an assault if they make it clear the victim will not suffer immediate harm (Savage)
mens reus: intention/ subjective recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend the immediate unlawful application of physical force (Savage)
- the defendant must realise there's a risk that his acts/ words could cause another person to apprehend unlawful physical violence
Battery s39 CJA 1988
actus reus: the application of unlawful physical force to another person directly or indirectly
- can be an act or omission
- force can be the slightest touch (Collins v Willcock)
- touching clothes is suffiecient (Thomas)
-can be a continuing act (Fagan v MPC)
- can be indirect (Haystead)
mens rea: intention/ subjective recklessness as to the unlawful application of physical force
- defendant must realise there's a risk of unlawful application of physical force (Cunningham)
-
coincidence of AR and MR:
- generally AR and MR must occur at the same time. HOWEVER, courts have modified this rule so that a serious of connected acts/omissions can be treated as a continuing act (Church/ Thabo Meli). the AR can stretch across a significant period of time (Fagan v MPC).
Transferred malice: where the defendants mens rea transfers from the intended victim to the actual victim (Mitchell)
- if the mens rea is for a completely difference offence then transferred malice doesn't apply
-