S47-ABH

    Cards (12)

    • D may have committed assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
    • The Actus reus is an assault or battery causing actual bodily harm.
    • Here, V's injuries constitute ABH defined in Miller as 'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim', as he suffered (e.g. bruises, scratches, swelling, mild concussion, momentary loss of consciousness (T v DPP), chest pain, cutting of hair (SMITH), psychiatric harm with a recognised medical condition more than fear or distress (Chan Fook, Burstow, Ireland)
    • Either- D committed ASSAULT under common law, and charged under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Nelson, Logdon, Lamb) by causing V the apprehension (fear) of the infliction of immediate unlawful force when he (e.g. threatened V causing him fear). USE AS RELEVANT: act/gesture or words, words can negate, must be fear of immediate unlawful force, can be indirect.
    • OR- D committed Battery under common law, and charged under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Rolfe, Thomas, Collins v Willcock) by the application of unlawful force om V when he (e.g. pushed V which is more than everyday contact). USE AS RELEVANT: need not be hostile/without consent, no injury, more than everyday contact, can be direct or indirect and even just clothing, can be through an omission.
    • Factual causation is satisfied as "but for" D's assault (or battery), V would not have been injured (PAGETT WHITE). For legal causation, D's assault (or battery) was the operating and substantial cause of V's injuries as it was significant, more than minimal contribution (SMITH). V (e.g. falling over and suffering bruising) is an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) but will not break the chain of causation as it was reasonably forseeable (use PAGETT: "act of a third party/contribution of others" or ROBERTS: "victim's own act") and legal causation is satisifed.
    • (APPLY TO LEGAL CAUSATION ONLY IF RELEVANT): 1) Medical negligence as a novus actus interveniens/intervening act does not break the chain of causation (CHESHIRE), unless it is "palpably wrong" (JORDAN). 2) The thin skull rule means to take your victim as you find them where the victim has a hidden weakness and so there will be legal causation (BLAUE).
    • The Mens Rea is intention or subjective recklessness as to an assault or a battery not as to the ABH itself, as in SAVAGE and in ROBERTS
    • Here D (Choose one of 4): Either- D has specific/direct intention as to an assault as D decided to bring about the particular consequence of fear (MOHAN) when (e.g. threatening to beat V up) OR specific/direct intention as to batter as D decided to bring about the particular consequence of unlawful force (MOHAN) when (e.g. pushing V aggressively in an argument)
    • OR D was subjectively reckless as to an assault as D foresaw a risk of causing fear (apprehension) and carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when (e.g. she pointed a toy gun at V) OR D was subjectively reckless as to a battery as D foresaw a risk of the application of unlawful force and carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when (e.g. she threw her drink over her shoulder and it hit V)
    • IF RELEVANT: "The transferred malice principle applies, where a crime intended for one person falls on another by accident, as in LATIMER, so D will still be liable as the mens rea for the (assault OR battery) is transferred from X to V"
    • TO CONCLUDE, D is likely to be liable as the AR and MR are satisfied
    See similar decks