Non-Fatals

• Assault - Actus Reus: causing V to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force or violence. Mens Rea: intention or recklessness as to causing V to apprehend immediate force or violence.
• R v Constanza: words can amount to an assault.
• R v Ireland: 1)silence constitutes assault; 2) psychological harm is an outcome of assault/battery.
• Tuberville v Savage: words can negate an assault.
• Smith v Woking: V fearing physical attack in the imminent future was enough.
• Battery - Actus Reus: infliction of unlawful force or violence. Mens Rea: intention or subjective recklessness as to applying unlawful force or violence.
• Collins v Willcock: no harm or pain needs to be proved.
• R v Thomas: slightest touch constitutes a battery.
• DPP v K: indirect force constitutes a battery.
• DPP v Santa Barmudez: battery can be caused by an omission if a ‘duty to act’ by D can be proved.
• S.47 OAPA - Actus Reus: assault or battery occasioning ABH. Mens Rea: intention or recklessness to cause assault or battery occasioning ABH.
• R v Miller: causing harm that interferes with the health/comfort of V.
• Chan Fook: injury should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant.
• T v DPP: loss of consciousness (even briefly) constitutes ABH.
• DPP v Smith:ABH applies to all body parts; harm doesn’t mean pain.
• Constanza/Ireland: a recognised psychiatric illness could amount to ABH.
• Roberts/Savage: D does not have to foresee harm.
• S.20 OAPA: Actus Reus: to unlawfully wound or inflict any GBH. Mens Rea: intention or recklessness as to causing some harm.
• C v Eisenhower: a ‘wound’ is a break in the continuity of all layers of the skin.
• DPP v Smith: GBH means ‘really serious harm’.
• R v Brown & Stratton: collection of minor ABHs could amount to GBH.
• R v Bollom: jury is entitled to consider particular characteristics of V.
• R v Burstow: 1) psychiatric injury could amount to GBH; 2) ‘inflict’ means to ‘cause’.
• R v Dica: biological harm could amount to GBH.