Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Non-fatal offences - Coggle Diagram

- - - - s18 and s20 have the same AR
      - Wounding
        
        "Wounding"
        
        Morris [2005] - A scratch which doesn't break every layer = not a wound
        
        The breaking of "all" the layers of the skin
        
        —Moriarty v Brookes [1834]: (Definition of a wound) "The definition of a wound in criminal cases is an injury to the person, by which the skin is broken. If the skin is broken, and there was a bleeding, that is a wound" (Lord Lyndhurst CB)
      - Inflicts GBH
        
        Smith [1961]: GBH = ‘serious bodily harm’
        
        Golding [2014]:
        ‘Ultimately, the assessment of harm done in an individual case in a contested trial will be a matter for the jury, applying contemporary social standards’. - Per Treacy LJ at [64]
        
        Bollom [2004] — V’s injury does not need to be permanent or life threatening
        
        Ireland and Burstow [1998] — Psychiatric harm may amount to GBH; — though this is up to expert witnesses to establish (i.e. that psychiatric injury/harm exists), and then ‘Up to the Jury to establish that Psychiatric injury was sufficient for GBH’
  - - - Intention/recklessness as to SOME harm
        
        —Mowatt [1967] 1 QB 421
        
        —Affirmed by the HoL in Savage & Parmenter [1992]
    - - Intention to cause GBH.
        
        —Taylor [2009] EWCA Crim 544: Intention to wound is not sufficient
        
        Either Direct or Oblique intention
- - - - Dhaliwal [2006]:
- - - - 2) Imminent
        
        —A threat of potential future violence is not sufficient for assault (see — Tuberville v Savage [1669] 1 Mood Rep 3
        
        "Imminent" is interpreted broadly
        
        Constanza [1997]
      - 3) Unlawful personal violence
        
        Any personal contact with V is sufficient for this requirement
        
        Cases (and principles)
        
        Dume [1986] - Threatened V with his dog (The U.P.V. can be committed indirectly)
        
        Mosolati [2017] - This inc. spitting, even if it doesn't land on V
        
        Threat can be implied or conditional - Kracher - Where D stated profanities at V, which were conditional...
      - 1) Apprehend
        
        Physical contact is not strictly necessary. Words alone may be sufficient -- Ireland [1998]
    - - Intention/recklessness as to the Assault
  - - - Cases
        
        Faulkner v Talbot [1981]: “any intentional touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse” per Lord Lane at 1534
        
        Thomas [1985]: Touching the "hem" of the skirt of a 12y/o pupil = battery
        
        Pursell v Horn [1836]: Battery isn't limited to bodily contact ("throwing" something on V is sufficient)
        
        Smith [1866] - Spitting = Battery
        
        Savage [1992] - Throwing beer on someone = Battery
        
        Indirect contact
        
        Haystead [2000] - D hit a Mother holding a child, and she dropped the child = Battery
        
        DPP v K [1990] - Transferred malice: D stole acid, left in bathroom hand dryer. V used the hand dryer and suffered wounds
        
        "Consent"
        
        Collins v Wilcox - Everyday touching is not battery because we consent to ordinary everyday contact with other people,
    - - DPP v K [1990] - Battery can be committed recklessly