Non fatal offences against the person Non fatal

Non fatal offences against the person

Non fatal offences against the person • Although there are two common law offences against the person, assault and battery, the main offences of ABH, GBH and GBH with intent, are contained in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. • This is a very old statute which causes problems for the legal system.

Common assault • • Common law offence. Summary offence. Charged under s 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. 6 months imprisonment or fine. ACTUS REUS – an act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate and unlawful force being used against them. – NB It must be an act, an omission isn’t sufficient. – It only needs to have caused fear, no force need actually be applied.

Common assault • • ACTUS REUS – Needs to be immediate but this interpreted as just imminent – Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) where woman was in a ground floor flat and man was in the garden looking in at her. She didn’t know what he would do but was frightened. – Constanza (1997) defendant wrote over 800 letters to the victim with the last two containing what the victim believed to be threats. – Ireland (1997) silent telephone calls were considered to be an assault as they put the defendant in immediate contact with the victim. MENS REA: intention to cause someone to fear the immediate infliction of unlawful force or recklessness as to whether that fear is caused.

Common battery • • • Common law offence. Summary offence. Charged under s 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. • ACTUS REUS: – application of unlawful force against the victim. – NB the force can just be a touch Collins v Wilcock (1984) where police officers tried to question two prostitutes who didn’t want to talk. Eventually the police officer gently put his hand on the back of one of the prostitutes arm but this was considered to be battery. Thomas (1985) where touching the bottom of a woman’s skirt was sufficient as the court said this was the same as touching the person. – Wood v DPP (2008) where a police officer took hold of Wood’s arm to check his identity, it was held that the officer had not arrested Wood, therefore there was a technical assault by the –

Common battery • ACTUS REUS: – Battery can also be committed by omission – DPP –v- Santana. Bermudez (2003) where a police officer asked the person she was searching whether he had any sharp objects in his pocket. He said no but when putting her hand in the pocket she put it straight on a needle causing bleeding. It was held that the defendant's failure to tell her of the needle could amount to the actus reus • MENS REA: an intention to apply unlawful physical force to someone or recklessness as to whether that force was applied

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm • • s 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. ACTUS REUS: – an assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm (so actus reus is the same as these offences). – Miller (1954) actual bodily harm is any harm or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim. – In T v DPP (2003) – loss of consciousness, even momentarily was held to be actual bodily harm – In DPP v Smith (Michael) (2006) cutting the victim’s hair can amount to actual bodily harm – Can be charged where there is any injury – bruising, grazes and scratches are all sufficient. – Chanfook (1997) also includes psychiatric injury but it must be an identifiable clinical condition.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm • MENS REA: – Considered to be the same as for assault and battery. – Roberts (1971) the defendant was driving a car and made advances to a girl in the passenger seat, he tried to take her coat off, she feared he was going to commit a serious assault and she jumped from the car, which was travelling at approximately 30 miles per hour, she was slightly injured from her fall. Roberts was found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm even though he had not intended any injury or realised there was a risk of injury; he had applied unlawful force when he tried to assault her in the car and this satisfied the mens rea for a common assault and so he was guilty under s. 47 – Savage (1991) defendant threw a glass of beer over her ex husband’s new girlfriend in a pub. Glass accidentally slipped out of her hand cut the woman. She meant to throw the beer so had the intention to apply unlawful force.

Malicious wounding / inflicting grievous bodily harm s 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 ACTUS REUS: – a direct or indirect act or omission which causes wounding or the infliction or grievous bodily harm – NB This offence is clearly split in two and the defendant must be charged correctly to ensure conviction – Wounding = a cut or break in the whole skin •

Malicious wounding / inflicting grievous bodily harm ACTUS REUS – JCC v Eisenhower (1983) internal bleeding in the eye was not sufficient as skin not broken. – Wood (1830) victim’s collar bone broken but skin wasn’t so not a wound. – Grievous bodily harm = serious harm following Saunders (1985). – Burstow (1997) where the victim of a stalker suffered a severe depressive illness as a result of being stalked, it was held that serious psychiatric injury can be grievous bodily harm – Bollom (2004) victim was 17 month old child whose abdomen, leg and arms were bruised. Court said severity of injuries should be assessed in accordance with victim’s age and health – In Dica (2004) it was decided that infecting someone with HIV was infliction of GBH.

Malicious wounding / inflicting grievous bodily harm • MENS REA: – intention or subjective recklessness as to some harm – must be done maliciously. – Based on Cunningham (1957) which means an intention to do a harm that was done or recklessness as to whether that harm should occur or not (the defendant must foresee it).

Malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent • • s 18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. ACTUS REUS: – wounding or causing grievous bodily harm. – Definitions of these are same as for s 20. – Necessary to prove that the defendant’s act was a substantial. – cause of the wound or grievous bodily harm.

Malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent • • s 18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. ACTUS REUS: – wounding or causing grievous bodily harm. – Definitions of these are same as for s 20. – Necessary to prove that the defendant’s act was a substantial. – cause of the wound or grievous bodily harm.

Malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent • MENS REA: – intent to do some grievous bodily harm or resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of any person (if any injury is caused whilst resisting arrest then can just prove recklessness in relation to this injury – Morrison (1989) where police officer seized defendant to arrest him and he dived through a window taking her with him. Her face was badly cut by the glass. Recklessness was sufficient for this injury). – Intention to wound is not enough for the mens rea for s. 18 – Taylor (2009) – Intention can be direct or oblique so follow Nedrick (1986) or Woollin (1998).

CPS Charging Standards The Charging Standards document gives useful examples of the matters that the CPS should consider in deciding the level of offence to be charged. • In deciding whether to charge the defendant with a common assault or with a s. 47 it states: ‘Where battery results in injury, a choice of charge is available. The Code for Crown Prosecutors recognises that there will be factors which may properly lead to a decision not to prefer or continue with the gravest possible charge. Thus, although any injury that is more than transient or trifling can be classified as actual bodily harm, the appropriate charge…. will be contrary to section 39 where the injuries amount to no more than the following: Grazes; Scratches; Abrasions; Minor bruising •

Group task • • Briefly set out the basic details of the defence of intoxication, with case illustrations. Briefly set out the basic details of the defence of mistake, with case illustrations. Briefly set out the basic details of the defence of self-defence, with case illustrations. Briefly set out some of the basic details of the defence of consent, with case illustrations.

Read through the following scenario: After drinking rather a lot of beer at a Halloween party, Eric felt the need for a curry and went into an Indian takeaway, still wearing his gruesome Halloween mask. The proprietor’s wife was behind the counter and was terrified by the sight of him. The proprietor, Sanjay, thought that Eric had come to rob the till, and rushed at Eric brandishing a baseball bat. Eric fled towards the door and reached it just as two other customers, Roger and Nicola, were coming in from the street. Finding his escape route blocked, Eric panicked and punched Roger in the face, breaking his nose. Nicola screamed in terror at the sight of so much blood and ran out into the road, where she was knocked down and injured by a passing car. Sanjay wrestled Eric to the ground and struck him several times with the baseball bat, causing him serious internal injuries. Answer the questions on the next slide.

Read through the following scenario: • • What offences has Eric committed and what points of law do you need to prove? Does Eric have any defence(s)? If so, what could he use and what legal points would you need to make? What offences has Sanjay committed and what points of law do you need to prove? Does Sanjay have any defence(s)? If so, what could he use and what legal points would you need to make?