Offences against the person

• Assault


  An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate and unlawful force/violence being used against them
• Mens Rea (MR) for Assault


  Intention to cause someone to fear the immediate infliction of unlawful force or recklessness as to whether that fear is caused
• Battery


  Application of unlawful physical force against the victim
• Mens Rea (MR) for Battery


  An intention or recklessness to apply unlawful physical force to someone
• Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)


  An assault or battery occasioning (causes) actual bodily harm
• Mens Rea (MR) for ABH


  Considered to be the same as battery or assault. No requirement to prove any extra mens rea for ABH
• Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH)


  An infliction of GBH or a wounding of the victim
• Mens Rea (MR) for GBH


  Intention or subjective recklessness as to some physical harm – must be done maliciously
• Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent

  Maliciously wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent to 'maliciously' wound or cause grievous bodily harm or resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of any person
• The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is outdated and in need of reform
• Plea bargaining: the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offence in return for a lower sentence to save court time and make the trial more predictable
• Common Law
• Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
• Murder


  The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King's (or Queen's) Peace and with malice aforethought, express or implied
• Homicide


  • The killing of one person by another, deliberately or not
  • A human being is dead
  • The defendant caused the death IN FACT
  • The defendant caused the death IN FACT
• Actus reus of murder

  Causation - it has to be proved that the defendant caused the death of the victim in fact and in law
• Mens rea of murder

  Intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (direct or indirect/oblique)
• Determining intention


  1. Was the result a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's conduct?

  2. Did the defendant foresee that the result was a virtually certain consequence of their conduct?
• A person is a human being when it can exist independently of its mother
• There is debate over what constitutes 'dead', but the courts tend to favour the definition of 'brain-dead'
• Causation tests


  • But for test
  • De minimis rule
  • Injury must be the operating and substantial cause of death
  • Thin skull test
  • Foreseeable intervening act
• Applying the definition of murder to scenarios

  1. State whether the required actus reus is present

  2. Identify the appropriate authority to apply
• The mandatory life sentence does not allow the court to take account of, for example, killing out of compassion
• There is no precise definition of when 'death' occurs
• Intention includes an intention to cause GBH but the conviction is the same (murder). No separate offence/lower offence
• There is no clear definition of intention. Problems with oblique intent
• Cases of euthanasia
• Law Commission proposals for reform

  • Divide murder into first and second degree
  • Allow defence of excessive self-defence
  • Allow defence of duress
  • Allow differentiation in sentencing
• The Government rejected the Law Commission's two-tier reform of murder but passed the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which allows for a defence of 'loss of control'
• Assisted suicide cases (Diane Pretty, Debbie Purdy)

  Do the courts' decisions seem justified?
• Re A (Conjoined Twins) case


  Does this constitute murder?
• Voluntary manslaughter


  The crime where a defendant has committed murder but is relying on a special (and partial) defence contained in the Homicide Act 1957 and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
• Loss of control


  • A partial defence that may reduce liability to manslaughter, but does not remove liability entirely
  • Only exists for murder, not a general defence
• Loss of control


  1. D must have lost their self-control at the time of the actus reus

  2. The loss of control need not be sudden

  3. Cumulative (growing) loss of self-control may be possible

  4. D must not be acting in a 'considered desire for revenge'

  5. Whether the D 'lost their self-control' is a question to be decided by the jury
• Qualifying trigger


  A loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger if subsection (3), (4) or (5) of s55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 applies
• Qualifying trigger - s55(3)


  • A trigger can be from a fear of serious violence from the victim
• Qualifying trigger - s55(4)


  • A trigger if D's loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) of an 'extremely grave' (very serious) character, causing the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
• Qualifying trigger - s55(5)


  • A trigger if D's loss of self-control was attributable to a combination of the matters mentioned in subsections (3) and (4)
• Sexual infidelity


  • s55(6)(c) of the CJA 2009 states that 'the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded'
  • However, where sexual infidelity was 'an essential part of the context' then the defence may be available
• Diminished responsibility


  A partial defence recognising that some defendants commit crime because of their mental illness, providing at least some justice for the victim