Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Non-fatal offences against the person - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Fagan v MPC:
        
        Held: For an offence of assault the intentional act must be performed; mere omission to act cannot amount to assault
        
        In the case C may have been initially unintentional, but at the time knowing the wheel was on the officer's foot, C:
        
        remained seated in car so that his body is in contact with officer
        
        switched off ignition of car
        
        maintained wheel of car on the foot; and
        
        used words indicating intention of keeping wheel in that position
        
        Hence you can't regard such conduct as mere omission/inactivity
        
        Mere words:
        
        R v Meade and Belt (1832): overruled - no words/singing can amount to assault
        
        R v Wilson (1955): "get out the knives" - words amounted to assault
      - Apprehension:
        
        D causes victim to apprehend the use of force against them
        
        Victim apprehends that use of force is immediate
        [C must be able to judge that harm is coming to them]
        
        R v Constanza (1997):
        
        Facts: 800 threatening letters, followed C home, wrote offensive words at C's front door, drove past C's house, stole items from C's washing line
        
        Held per CA: Must prove that the fear was in victim's mind, how it got there, whether by seeing action/hearing threat and whether threat was conveyed verbally directly or by telephone
        
        DPP v Ramos (2000):
        
        "its the state of mind of the victim that is crucial, rather than the statistical risk of violence occurring within a short space of time"
- - - - Bodily harm - R v Donovan (1934):
        
        Held: "bodily harm" has its normal meaning and includes any hurt/injury calculated to interfere with health/comfort of victim
        
        Such hurt/injury no need to be permanent, but must no doubt be more than merely transient and trifling
      - Psychiatric harm - R v Chan Fook (1994):
        
        the phrase 'actual bodily harm' includes psychiatric injury but does not include mere emotions like fear/distress/panic nor does it include states of mind that are not themslves evidence of some identifable clinical condition
- - - - AR:
        
        Makes any gesture or preparation
        
        MR:
        
        Intending/knowing it to be likely
      - Mere words:
        
        They don't amount to an assault.
        
        But words that a person uses may give to his gesture/preparation, such a meaning as may make those gesture/preparations amount to an assault
        [The words must build up to the assault]
  - - - MR:
        
        Intentionally use force to any person in order to cause committing of any offence or;
        
        Intending by use of such force to illegally cause injury, fear/ annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, or
        
        Knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will illegally cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used
      - AR:
        
        A person is said to use force to another if:
        
        he causes motion, change of motion or cessation of motion to that other, or
        
        he causes to any susbtance such as motion, or change of motion or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with
        
        (i) any part of that other's body, or
        
        (ii) with anything which that other is wearing / carrying, or
        
        (iii) with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling