Non-fatal offences

• Non-fatal offences against the person are set out in the Offences Against the Person Act 1961 and the common law.
• There are five different non-fatal offences:

  1. Assault
  2. Battery
  3. Assault occasioning ABH
  4. Wounding/ Inflicting GBH
  5. Wounding/ GBH with intent
• Order of seriousness - most serious at top and least serious at bottom:

  • GBH with intent
  • Wounding/ Inflicting GBH
  • Assault occasioning ABH
  • Assault
  • Battery
• Criminal Offences:

  • All Criminal Offences have a number of elements that need to be proven.
  • Some of these elements will be part of the actus reus, and some will be part of the mens rea.
• Criminal Offences:

  • For example, Theft requires "dishonestly taking property belonging to another person, with the intention to permanently deprive them of it".
  • The elements of the crime of theft therefore are:

  1. Dishonesty
  2. Property
  3. Intention to permanently deprive them of it
  4. Taking
  5. Belonging to another person
• Some elements are Actus Reus and some are Mens Rea
• Criminal Offences:

  • A prosecution lawyer in a court case needs to prove that the Defendant has satisfied ALL of the elements.
  • If they do not do his, the Defendant will be Not Guilty.
• COMMON ASSAULT:

  Common assault can be committed in one of two ways:

  1. Assault
  2. Battery

  Both of these offences are common law offences.

  They are recognized and charged under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  They have a maximum sentence of 6 months or £5000 each.
• Would this scenario be an assault, a battery or an assault AND a battery.

  Bob sneaks up on Viv from behind and hits her over the head.

  A Battery
• Would this scenario be an assault, a battery or an assault AND a battery.

  Bob runs up to Viv with his fists raised and screams "I'm going to hit you!" before shoving her forcefully to the floor and running away.

  an assault and battery
• Would this scenario be an assault, a battery or an assault AND a battery.

  Bob runs up to Viv with his fists raised and screams "I'm going to hit you!", but slips and falls over before he can reach her.

  an assault
• ASSAULT - "An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force with either an intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused"

  R v Nelson 2013
• Elements of Assault

  Actus Reus:

  • An Act
  • Causes Victim to Apprehend
  • Immediate
  • Unlawful Force
• Elements of Assault

  Mens Rea:

  • Intention to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.
  • Recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force
• An Act:

  Includes: Actions, Written words, Silence, Indirect threats, and Continuing Acts
• Causes Victim to Apprehend - no fear means no assault, and V must fear Force.
• AN ACT

  Actions: Logdon v DPP 1976

  the defendant pointed a fake gun at the victim, who was terrified as she thought the gun was real. Only afterwards did he tell her it was a fake.
• AN ACT

  Written words: R v Constanza 1998

  The defendant harassed her former work colleague over a period of almost 2 years - including 800 hateful letters, and words graffitied on her front door. He argued these words alone could not be an assault.

  He was guilty - words alone can constitute an assault and the letters were an immediate enough threat.
• AN ACT

  Silence: R v Ireland 1997

  The defendant made numerous silent phone calls to three different women. They all suffered psychological harm as a result of the fear caused by these repeated calls.

  He was guilty of assault causing actual bodily harm, proving that silence can amount to an assault if it causes the victim to apprehend immediate violence - which it did here.
• AN ACT

  Indirect threats: R v Dume 1986

  A man released his dog towards a police officer and told him to "kill that man". The dog but the officer on the leg.

  He was guilty of maliciously wounding the officer, the court confirming that an assault can take place through indirect actions (here, through the dog).
• AN ACT

  Continuing Acts: Fagan v MPC 1969

  The defendant accidentally drove onto a police officers foot, but on realizing he had done so he refused to move the car.

  This was a continuous act, nd the defendant became guilty the moment the mens rea was formed when he refused to drive off the foot. 
• CAUSES VICTIMS TO APPREHEND

  No fear means no assault: R v Lamb 1967

  Two boys were messing around with a gun. Thy did not believe it was properly loaded so did not think pulling the trigger would fire a bullet. One boy pointed the gun at the other, puller the trigger, and the boy was shot and killed when a bullet fired.

  The defendant was not guilty of manslaughter, as this required as assault causing death but it was judged no assault had taken place because both boys believed the gun could not fire, so the victim would not have apprehended it. No fear means there can be no assault.
• CAUSES VICTIMS TO APPREHEND

  Victims must fear actual force: Smith v Chief Constable of Working 1983

  The victim noticed the defendant - a stranger - stood in her garden late at night, staring at her through the window. He did not move or run away when she screamed. She was terrified, despite the doors being locked so D could not get to her.

  He was guilty - the victim feared imminent force. It did not matter that the doors were locked as it was plausible for the victim to think he could find a way in.
• IMMEDIATE

  • The victims' fear must be that force could be used against them "immediately".
  • Smith v CC of Woking 1983 - defined "immediate" as "imminent but not instantaneous"
  • Tuberville v Savage 1669 - Defendant put his hands on his sword and said to the victim "were if not assize time, it would not take such language from you." He was not guilty - because his words demonstrated that his threat was no immediate.
• UNLAWFUL FORCE

  Dealt with below under Battery
• MENS REA

  Intention to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force, or Recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.

  R v Cunningham 1957:

  • Confirmed that the test for recklessness is subjective.
  • Depends on what the defendant personally foresaw.
  • Defendant would need to foresee a risk of victims fear.
• BATTERY - "The application of unlawful force to another person intending either to apply unlawful physical force to another or recklessness as to whether unlawful force is applied".
• Elements of Battery

  Actus Reus:

  • Unlawful
  • Application

  of

  • Force
• Elements of Battery

  Mens Rea:

  • Intention to apply unlawful force
  • Recklessness to apply unlawful force
• UNLAWFUL

  Wilson v Pringle - there is implied consent to the "ordinary jostling's of everyday life".

  Criminal Law Act 1967, s.3 - application of force is situations of self-defenses are lawful

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, s.117 - force can be used by police when making an arrest.
• APPLICATION:

  DPP v K 1990

  The defendant was a school student who stole acid from his science lesson and left this in the hand dryer in the toilets. The next student to use the dryer was splashed in the face with the acid.

  He was guilty of battery which was committed indirectly. The acid was applied to the victim, and the defendant had placed the acid in the dryer knowing this would happen.

  Can be done indirectly
• APPLICATION:

  R v MARTIN 1881

  The defendant went to a full theatre, shut the doors and placed an iron bar across the doors to effectively lock them. He then shouted “Fire! Fire!” within the theatre and caused panic amongst the audience leading to a stampede.

  He was guilty – application of force can be indirect (this was for GBH but the same rule applies for battery).

  Can be done indirectly
• APPLICATION:

  FAGAN v MPC 1969

  The defendant accidentally drove onto a police officer’s foot, but on realizing he had done so he refused to move the car.

   This was a continuous act, and the defendant became guilty the moment the mens rea was formed when he refused to drive off the foot

  Can be a continuous act
• APPLICATION:

  DPP v SANTANA-BERMUDEZ 2003

  A police officer conducted a search of the defendant. Before doing do, the officer asked if the D had any dangerous objects. He answered No, despite being aware of a hypodermic needle in his pocked, which pricked the officer as she carried out the search.

  The defendant was guilty of battery through omission as he failed to disclose the existence of the needle when asked.

  Can be done by an omission
• FORCE

  COLLINS v WILCOCK 1984

  A police officer grabbed a woman’s arm to stop her walking away. The woman scratched the officer whilst trying to escape her grip and was charged with assaulting a police officer.

  The woman was not guilty of the assault because the court decided that the officer’s actions amounted to a battery, and the woman was therefore acting in self-defenses.

  Includes any unlawful contact, even by a police officer
• FORCE

  R v THOMAS 1985

  The defendant was a school caretaker who was charged with indecent assault after touching the hem of the skirts of various female school students.

  The court stated that touching someone's clothes whilst they are wearing them in enough to constitute application of force for the purpose of battery. However, the defendant was not guilty here due to a lack of evidence.

  Includes touching clothing
• FORCE

  FAULKNER v TALBOT 1981

  The defendant carried out a sexual assault against a 14-year-old boy. She claimed when touching him that this was not done aggressively.

  She was guilty as the judge said there was no need for the force to be applied in a manner which was “hostile, rude or aggressive”.

  There is no need for the contact to be "hostile, rude or aggressive".
• MENS REA:

  Intention to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force, or Recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.

  R v CUNNINGHAM 1957

  Confirmed that the test for recklessness is subjective.

  R v VENNA 1975

  Defendant injured a police officer as he lashed out whilst being arrested. He claimed he did not intent to hurt the officer but was panicked.

  Guilty - because recklessness is enough for battery, and in lashing out he was reckless.
• ASSAULT OCCASIONING ABH

  "Assault" in this context = assault or battery.

  "occasioning" in this context = causing.

  This offence is statutory and is contained in s.47 Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861.

  It is triable either-way (Magistrates or Crown Court).

  Maximum sentence = 5 years
• ABH definition = "An assault which occasions actual bodily harm, with the intention to cause the victim to fear unlawful force, or to subject unlawful force, or to be subjectively reckless as to whether the victim fears or is subjected to unlawful force".

  Section 47 Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861 - Assault OR Battery plus harm.