s.47

• Definition of S.47 OAPA 1861


  'Any assault occasioning actual bodily harm'
• Actus reus of a s.47


  • (Common) assault
  • Occasioning
  • Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)
• Actus reus - (Common) assault


  This means an assault or battery.

  Assault - no touching

  Battery - application of unlawful force
• Actus reus - Occasioning (causation)


  'Occasioning' just means causes.

  • Factual causation - 'but for test' - R v Pagett
  • Legal Causation - 'more than a slight or trifling link' + 'more than minimal' - R v Kimsey + R v Hughes
  • Intervening act - Medical intervention + Victim's own act - R v Jordan + R v Roberts.
  • 'Thin skull rule' - the defendant must take the victim as they find them - unusual mental or physical state which makes them more injury prone cannot be used as an excuse - R v Blaue
• Actus reus - Actual Bodily harm (ABH) definition


  Case - R v Miller - any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim.
• Actus reus - Actual bodily harm (ABH)


  A nervous and hysterical condition could be an example of ABH, providing that the harm was more than 'trivial'. Furthermore, the harm occurred is not limited to just the skin, flesh and bones, but also to psychiatric harm (but evidence is needed to support this).

  Case - R v Chan Fook
• Actus reus - Actual Bodily harm (ABH)


  Where 'bodily harm' is psychiatric harm, this includes recognisable psychiatric illness.

  Case - R v Burstow
• Actus reus - Actual Bodily harm (ABH)


  A loss of consciousness, even if only temporary, could be an example of actual bodily harm.

  Case - T v DPP
• Actus reus - Actual Bodily harm (ABH)


  Cutting someone's hair could be an example of actual bodily harm.

  Case - DPP v Smith (Michael)
• Actus reus - Actual bodily harm (ABH)


  We can consider the following as ABH: bruises, grazes, scratches, swelling, bite marks, minor fractures, tooth loss or chipping, cutting hair, psychiatric injury, loss of consciousness.
• Mens rea - Intention or Recklessness


  As there is no explicit mens rea, the Court have taken a presumption of mens rea through the fact that the offence needs to have been committed by either an assault or battery. Therefore, the mens rea for a common assault is sufficient as the mens rea of s.47.

  If the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated whilst doing the prohibited conduct, this is seen in the law as committing the offence recklessly.

  Case - DPP v Majewski
• Mens rea - Intention or Recklessness


  Although the defendant needs to have intended to be reckless as to committing an assault or battery, there is no need for the defendant to demonstrate that they intended or were reckless in causing actual bodily harm.

  Case - R v Roberts
• Mens rea - Intention or Recklessness


  • Direct intention - this is where our defendant's main aim/purpose matches the desired consequence - R v Mohan
  • Oblique intention - This is where the defendant's main aim/purpose does not match the consequences. Therefore, we need to test whether 1) the consequence was virtually certain 2) whether the defendant foresaw that consequence - R v Woollin
  • Subjective recklessness - This is where the defendant knows there is a risk but chooses to take that risk anyway - R v Cunningham