CS - non-fatal offences

• Smith v Woking Police (1983)


  The act was looking at a woman in her nightclothes through a window. The threat of violence was considered immediate, even though D was still outside V’s home – V did not know what may happen next but that it was likely to be of a violent nature.
• Ireland (1999)

  Words alone could be enough and even silent phone calls. D

  committed assault by making silent phone calls to his victims. When Vs

  suffered psychiatric illness as a result, D was guilty under s.47.
• Tuberville v Savage (1669)


  Words can also prevent an assault by making it clear that violence is

  not going to be used. Where D placed a hand on his sword and said, “If it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you...”
• Logdon (1976)


  D pointed an imitation gun at V in jest. V did not realise it was a replica and was terrified. Although D did not intend to carry out the threat, he was reckless as to whether V would apprehend such violence.
• Collins v Wilcock (1984)


  It was decided that “any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to a battery”.
• Thomas (1985)


  Touching someone’s clothes while they are wearing them is equivalent

  to touching the person.
• DPP v K (1990)

  Battery can also be committed by an indirect act such as a booby trap, where D put acid in a hand drier.
• Santana-Bermudez (2003)

  Unlike Assault, an omission can form a Battery. D failed to tell a police officer that he had needle in his pocket when being searched.
• Venna (1976)


  The MR of battery was defined in Venna (1976), where D was judged to

  have committed battery recklessly when struggling with a police officer who was trying to arrest him.
• Miller (1954)


  ABH was defined as “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort”, provided it is more than trivial. Harm is not limited to injury to the skin, flesh and bones.
• DPP v Smith (2006)


  It was held that cutting off V’s ponytail amounted to ABH.
• T v DPP (2003)


  The momentary loss of consciousness amounted to ABH.
• Savage (1991)


  D threw beer into V’s face, however the glass slipped from her hand and cut V. It was sufficient that D had the MR of battery. There is no need to intend or be reckless as to whether ABH is caused.
• Eisenhower (1983)

  Wounding means breaking the skin, not internal bleeding as in Eisenhower (1983) in which a blood vessel was burst. Any cut could be treated as a wound, provided it breaks two layers of the skin (Technically it is possible to bleed without breaking two layers of the skin.) An abrasion, bruise or burn would not amount to a wound because the skin is not broken.
• Bollom (2004)


  It was said the severity of injuries should be assessed according to V’s age and health.
• Brown & Stratton (1997)


  Several minor injuries amounted to GBH.
• Burstow (1997)


  More recently the definition of GBH has been extended to cover serious

  psychiatric injury
• Parmenter (1991)


  D threw his baby into the air and caught him. D was not guilty of s.20 because he did not realise there was a risk of any injury. It is not necessary to intend serious harm or even realise there is a risk of causing serious harm – only SOME harm.