Additional Slides: Criminal Law IFP Law Module 2017

General advice Review all the notes including these slides. These include slides, seminar material and even relevant review material. Reflect on ACTUS REUS and MENS REA in your answer. Where there is relevant statute indicated in your notes, you should quote it. Where the notes have indicated possible penalties, and the penalties are applicable to the question, you should attempt to use them.

Assault The main offences in assault are based on the following criteria: if the victim was injured; if the injuries are serious and their level of seriousness; and the intention of the defendants. The main offences are (in ascending order of seriousness): Common assault: Assault pursuant to s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 1988 Battery: s.39 CJA 1988 assault occasioning actual bodily harm: s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) Malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm – s.20 OAPA wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent – s.18 OAPA.

Common Assault Assault and battery are common law offences however they are recognised in stature (S.39 CJA) though not defined in that Act: Common Assault and battery shall be summary offences and a person guilty of wither of them shall be liable for a fine not exceeding level 5 of the standard scale or to a term of 6 months imprisonment or both. Case law defines common assault: Collins v Wilcock [1984]: An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person; a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person. Assault: no touching, only fear of immediate unlawful force. Battery: there must be actual force

Common Assault Actus Reus of Assault: (1) an act (2) which causes the victim apprehension of immediate unlawful force. 1. An Act: Requires some words or an act. Logdon v DPP [1976]: D showed the victim a gun in his desk drawer, which D said was loaded. The gun was fake. Held: assault. Words count too: Constanza [1997] 800 letters constituted an assault. Silence? Ireland (1997): even a silent telephone call can be an assault. It depends on the facts of the case.

Common Assault 2. Apprehend immediate unlawful force: There is no assault if it is obvious that defendant cannot use force: pointing a unloaded gun when V knows it is unloaded: Lamb [1967] Immediate does not mean instantaneous but “imminent”: seeing someone through closed window was held to be assault because of “fear of what might happen next”: Smith v Woking Police [1983] Ireland: it involves questions of fact that are within the province of the jury – the case of a silent caller, the receiver may fear the caller’s arrival at the door, it depends on the circumstances of the case. Unlawful force: the force has to be unlawful (not authorised by statue or other means).

Common Assault Actus Reus of Battery: actual infliction of unlawful force on another person: force could be touch. Principle: every person’s body is inviolate. Collin v Wilcock [1984] Two police officers attempt to ask the name of a woman who they thought was soliciting as a prostitute. She walked away. Woman was grabbed, who then scratched the officer when she tried to get away. Held: officer committed battery as he was acting unlawfully and the woman was entitled to free herself. Fagan [1968]: the omission (not moving off the foot) wasn’t in itself an act but it was held to be a continuous act. DPP v K [1990]: Indirect Act: leaving acid in a air drier – leaving a trap. DPP v Santana-Bermudez: omissions.

Mens Rea for assault and battery The Mens Rea for assault is either an intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused Battery is an intention to apply unlawful physical force to another or recklessness as to whether the force is applied. Intention – refer to common law rules (see Mens Rea slides). Recklessness – DPP v Majewski [1976] D got very drunk then started a fight in a pub. He claimed he was drunk, Ct held that the drinking that led to the fighting indicated a recklessness that was adequate mens rea. Problem here: coincidence of actus and mens?

Actual Bodily Harm: s.47 OAPA This requires: actual assault or battery which occasions (causes) actual bodily harm. S.47: imprisonment for 5 year. No statutory definitions, we rely on case law. Actus Reus ABH – more than merely transient or trifling: Donovan [1934]; Temporary loss of consciousness also ABH – though transient it was not trifling: R(T) v DPP [2003]; Bruises, scratches and grazes count, including even cutting V’s hair: DPP v Smith Michael [2006] Mens Rea ABH – same as assault and battery Savage (1991) D threw beer on V, glass slipped and hit V cutting her hand. Charged s.20 (malicious wounding). D – only intended to throw beer, not hurt her. Nor saw any risk of harm. Ct held that throwing beer was intent to apply unlawful force (battery), enough for ABH so Ct substituted s.47 conviction for s.20.

Malicious Wounding or GBH: s.20 OAPA. Though the penalty under s.20 is same as ABH (max. 5 years) it is seen as a more serious offence and requires a higher degree of injury and mens rea. AR s.20: wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm. Wounding = a cut of all layers of the skin. Eisenhower [1983] eye injury from gun pellet that did not damage skin or lead to bleeding above the surface not a wound. Inflicting GBH = GBH means “really serious harm” DPP v Smith [1961] however a direction to the jury of just “serious harm” was not incorrect: Sanders [1985] MR s.20: D must intend to cause V harm or be subjectively reckless as to whether V suffers harm. Maliciously does not require ill will towards V. It simply mean (1) an intention to do the particular harm that was in fact done and (2) recklessness as to whether such harm would occur: Cunningham [1957]. ‘Cunningham recklessness’ applies to all cases that have “maliciousness” in their definition. See notes on Cunningham

Wounding or GBH with intent: s.18 Elements of s.18: to unlawfully or maliciously wound; to cause GBH and did it; intended to do some GBH or intended to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension of detention of either himself or another person. This is for more serious injuries: max. punishment can be life. AR with intent: is to wound or cause GBH – see s.18. MR with intent: this is a specific intent crime. D must have (i) intended to do some GBH or (ii) intended resist/ prevent lawful apprehension of a person. (i) Intention on GBH comes to us case law – Moloney [1985] foresight of consequences is not intention, it is only evidence from which intention can be found; Nedrick and Woolin: intention cannot be found unless the harm was virtually certain as a result of D’s actions and D realised that this was so. (ii) Intention on resisting = Morrison (1989): dragging police officer across the room while resisting arrest, held Cunningham recklessness applied here.