Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

non fatal offences against the person, the applictaion of unlawful force…

- - - - the act involved is different fir assault and battery - for assault there is no touching only the fear of immediate unlawful force - for battery there must be actual force. there are often situations wher bth occur, eg defendent approaches victim shouting that he is going to get him - then punches the victim in the face, the approachingm shouting and riisng his ar prior to the punch constitute an assauktm wguke oybcg us rge battery
  - - - in r v nelson - 2013 - the curt of appeal states that what is requireed for common assault is for d to have done something of a physical kind which causes someone else to apprehend that they are about to be struck
- - - - an assault or battery which causes v grevious bodily harm and d intended to infict an injury or was subjectively reckless as to whetehr an injury would be caused
      - what level of harm
        
        the harm can be mental or physical
        
        it does not have to be life threatenings
        
        serious phyciatric injury can be gbh eg r v burstow
- - - - contact which is acceptable in everyday life will not amount to battery
      - A police woman took hold of a woman's arm to stop her walking off when she was questioning her. The woman scratched the police woman and was charged with assaulting a police officer in the course of her duty.
        she appealed against that conviction on the basis that the officer was not acting in the execution of his duty but was acting unlawfuly by holding her arm as the officer was not arresting her
        the court held that the officer had commited a battery and the defendent was entitles t ree herself
        
        in this case the court pointed iyt that touching a person to get his attention was acceptable provided no greater degree of physical contact was used than was necessary
        howevver physical restraint not acceptable
      - similiar point arised in wiid v dpp where a policeofficer took hold of woods arm to check his identity
        
        scenario
        
        A man believed to be Fraser threw
        
        ashtray in pub and police officer took
        
        hold of W who matched the description.
        
        As Wood tried to pull away another
        
        officer grabbed Wood’s other arm
        
        wood was chaged with assaulting two police officers however
        
        The first police officer stated that he
        
        took hold of Wood to detain him but
        
        not to arrest him. The police officers
        
        had therefore committed a battery on
        
        Wood and he was entitled to strugg
  - - - holding a persons arm - colins v wilcock, wood v dpp
      - contatc can be indirect eg a trap in r v martin 1881 - leaving acid in a drier in dpp v k or where contact is amade with a third person because of ds contact w v - haystead v cc of derbyshire
      - anotehr situayionw here force may be lawful is inthe correctionof child by pareny - english law recognises that moderatire physical chastisement of a child lawful hwoever in a v uk where a jury had accquited a father who had beaten his son with a garden cane, the eu court of human rights ruled that a law allowing force to be used on chikderen offends article 3 of eu convention on human rights - however the chidren act 2004 now provides that a battery commited on a child is unlawful if it reuslts in any injury
    - - appropriate parental chasyisemeny of a child
      - during lawful arrest
      - during a sport where contact is normal
      - if person being contacted consents
  - - - a battery may be commited through a contuinuing act as in fagan where the defendent parked his car with one of the tyres on a police officers foot, wen he had oarjed ge was unaware that he had done this, but when the police officer asked him to remove it, he refused to do it for several mins
        the court had said that at the start there was an act that could amount to vattery but the full offence of battery was nit committed at that point as there was bo element of intententuib - but the intentionw as formed when it was decided to leave the wheel on the police officers foot
    - - a battery can alsp ne through an indirect act such as a booby rao. in this situatuon the defendent cuases firce to be applied even though he or she does not personally touch the victim - this occured in r v marin where the defendent placed an iron bar acriss the doorway of a theatre - he then switches off the lights - in the panic which followed serval of he audience were injured when they were trapped and uable to ioen the door. martinwas convucted
      - a more modern exanole us dpp v k
        
        ...
        
        Defendant was a schoolboy who stole
        
        acid and hid it in hot air hand drier used
        
        by another boy who was burned.
    - - dpp v santa bermudez
        
        ...
        
        Policewoman asked defendant if had
        
        sharp objects before search. Defendant
        
        said no but policewoman was injured by
        
        needle in defendant pocket.
        
        failuiyre to warn of needle ommited to battery
        
        r v miller ( created the situtaion)
        
        d accidentally set fire to his matress but failed to do anythig to prevent damage to the building in which he was sleeoing he was convicted of arson
    - - the defendent caused a small child to fall to the floor by punching the woman holding the child . the defendent was found guilty - conviction could also ve justfied by transferred maluice
- - - - The defendant's wife had left him in 1952. The following year she petitioned for divorce. Before the hearing for the petition the defendant had sexual intercourse with her against her will. He had thrown her to the ground on three occasions and she was in a hysterical and nervous condition as a result of his actions. He was charged with rape and assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s.47 OAPA 1861. The defendant relied on the marital consent exception to rape and that nervous shock does not amount to a bodily injury.
      - the defendent was liable for abh as it was said that actual bodily harm is any hurt or unjurt calcukated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim
        
        so nervous shock did amount to actual bodily harm
    - - d and a group of other youth groups chased v. v fell to the ground and saw d coming towards gum, v covered his head with his arms and was kicked. he neomentaruky lost consiousness and remembred nothing until being woken by a police officer
    - - cut hair
        
        dpp v smith micheal
        
        it was held that cutting the victims hair can amount to actual bodily harm though it must be a substantial amount of hair eg a ponytail
        
        in smith the court hekd that physical pain was not a necessary ingredient of actual bodily harm - hair is attatched ti the head and this makes it a oart of the body so that harm to hair counts as abh
    - - also classed as abh 0 this was decided by the court of appeal in r v chan fook
      - however they pointed out that abh dies nit include mere emotions suh as fere distress ir panic - nor does it include " states of mind that are not in themselbes evidence of some identifiable clinical condition
      - ...
        
        the decision was approved in r v burstow where it was said that bodiky harm nyst be interpreted soi as to unckude recognisabe ycriatic ilness
      - r v burstow
        
        The defendant had a brief relationship with a woman She ended the relationship and he could not accept her decision and embarked on a campaign of harassment against her over a period of 8 months. He made silent telephone calls, abusive telephone calls, he appeared at her house, took photos of her, distributed offensive cards to her neighbours and hate mail. As a result she suffered a severe depressive illness
        
        Two questions for the court were:
        
        whether psychiatric injury could amount to bodily harm under the OAPA 1861
        
        whether a person could be liable under s.20 where there was no direct or indirect application of physical force on a person.
      - Classic examples are PTSD Hale v London Underground (1992) and anxiety neurosis Chadwick v British Railways Board (1967).
- - - - the fact that she intended ti throw the beer over the other woman meant she had the intention to apply unlawful force and this was sufficiengt for the mens rea of teh s20 offence
- - - - it was held that even silent telephone calls can be an assault ( depends on facts of casef
      - act - d made numerous creepy phone calls
      - law - phone calls even with just breathing or silence are an act
  - - - tuberville v savage 1669 and r v ight
        
        v insulted d and d made as if to draw his sword, d siad " if it were not assize time, i would not take such language from you".
        this was held not to be an assault becayse what he said showed he was not going to do anything
        however this was largely dependent on the circumstances -
        for example in r v light, the defendent raised a sword above his wife and said " if it were not for the policeman outside i would split your head open"m it was held this was an assault, the wife feared that force was going to be used against her and words werre not enough to negate her fear,
        
        r v light esyablushed that extreme actions will not be cancelled out by words
        
        note - this could be a a bad rule as the victims might still be traumatsied by the situation
      - r v lamb
        
        pointing an unloaded gun that knows that it is uloaded cannot be an assault this is because the other person does not fear immediate force - howeveer if the other person tought the gun was loaded then this could be an assault
  - - - d was outside the house but looking in through vs window - this was sufficiently immediate
    - - picket miners shouted threats at v who was in an armoured coach with a line of police between the pickets and the coach - no sufficiently immediate or possible violence
    - - we could in theory include prosecutions of assaults where there was no immediate threat however we have a finite number of [olicemen and courts and it is also extremely expensive- could be spent on more important things - raises taxes - investment not worth benefit
  - - - lawful force examples include :
        threatened contact in sport,
        proportionate defence,
        reasonable careful parental chastisement,
        consented force
        arrest in compliance with rules from police and criminal evidence act
        other examples of consent ( children cannot consent to biolence)
        threats of self defence