Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Non Fatal Offences - Coggle Diagram

- - - - R v Lamb (no apprehension, doesn’t matter that the gun was real, they genuinely thought the gun didn’t have bullets and they weren’t apprehending force)
      - R v Logdon (apprehension, doesn’t matter that the gun was not real and they did not have the means to carry out the threat as the woman thought the gun was real and the men intended to make her apprehend force)
      - R v Wilson- words
      - Tuberville v Savage- words can negate an assault (only if from V’s point of view, this makes them not apprehend immediate unlawful force)
    - - Does not need to be instantaneous, this includes ‘at some point, not excluding the immediate future’ and does not require physical proximity (R v Constanza)
      - if it is imminent even if silent (R v Ireland menacing silent phone calls)
      - Smith v Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station shows pressing your face on someone’s window counts even if they don’t know what they will do next. Also shows immediate does not mean instant (can be in the next couple of minutes)
    - - must not be done in self defence or with V’s consent, etc
    - - apprehends any unwanted physical tough
      - Where it does result in psychological harm which is more than trivial, D will instead be liable for a more serious offence
  - - - Intend- aim or purpose (R v Moloney)
      - Reckless- ( R v G) D sees a risk their actions will cause V to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence and In circumstances known to D, it was objectively unreasonable to take that risk
- - - - Direct- Collins v Wilcock- and merest touch counts
      - Indirect- R v Martin (closed exit doors and turned off the lights, people bumped into things and hurt themselves)- DPP v K (acid into a hand dryer)
      - By omission- Santana Bermudez- by saying they did not have anything sharp which led to police pricking their finger on a search- also counts as force
    - - Battery must not be done in self defence or with V’s consent
      - Consent can be express or implied by everyday contact (contrast- Collins v Wilcock)
    - - Includes lightest of touch (Collins v Wilcock)
      - Does not have to be hostile or aggressive as it was still nonconsensual (Faulkner v Talbot)
      - Touching clothes while they are wearing them is sufficient (Thomas)
      - Where battery results in harm more than trivial, they will be liable for more serious offence
- - - - a full assault or battery must have been committed
    - - Causation (refer to criminal core principles)
      - assault/battery must have caused the actual bodily harm
      - DPP v Santana-Bermudez shows it can be caused via omission by creating a dangerous situation for reasonably foreseeable harm and not preventing it
    - - R v Donovan- need not be serious or permanent but more than transient and trifling
      - R v Chan-Fook- must be an injury- must not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant
      - T v DPP- momentary loss of consciousness counts as ABH as it involves injurious impairment of sensory functions
      - DPP v Smith- cutting hair amounts to ABH as it is a part of the body being harmed
      - R v Chan-Fook- includes psychiatric injury of some idenitifiable clinical condition (not just emotion like fear or distress)
- - - - wound
        
        C (a minor) v Eisenhower- must break both dermis and epidermis- rupture of blood vessels internally is not sufficient. The injury need not be severe, any breaking of the skin will suffice
      - maliciously
        
        include causation
    - - Intention or be recklessness as to the causing of some harm R v Savage
  - - - R v Wilson- no need for an assault
      - R v Burstow- can be psychological and ‘inflict’ did not require an assault first
      - R v Ireland- psychiatric injury may amount to GBH is sufficiently serious but it’s cause and effect will need to be proved by expert evidence
      - R v Saunders- usually GBH means really serious harm, but it would not be a misdirection to only include ‘serious harm’
      - R v Bollom- jury should consider the effect of the injuries on V, taking into account age and health, and it can be accumulative, multiple smaller injuries
    - - causation
    - - Intention or be recklessness as to the causing of some harm R v Savage