June 2014 – Q1 - Feedback Assault, S.47, S.20, self- defence

Grade Boundaries A* = 22/25 – 86% A = 20/25 – 79% B = 18/25 – 71% C = 16/25 – 64% D = 14/25 – 56% E = 12.5/25 – 50% Difference between each grade is only 2 marks

Potential Contents 1.Assault AND Self-Defence – Only one limits to weak clear 2.S.47 AND S.20 and/or S.18 – Only one limits to weak clear

2 potential contents 25 – 2 S 23 – 1S, 1C 20 – 1S, 1 some / 2C 17 – 1S / 1C, 1 some 13 – 1C / 2 some / 2S explanation only 11 – 1S explanation only / 2C explanation only 8 – 1 some / 1C explanation only / 2 some explanation only 6 – 1 some explanation only

Assault – Common Mistakes Too many people rushed through the AR part Some people thought the MR was about whether Beck intended to send the text or whether he intended to go to the cinema

Assault First define the offence - Ireland; Burstow – D intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence 5 parts to the AR: – Act – Cause – Apprehend – Immediate – Unlawful violence

Assault - AR 1. An Act Constanza – Words alone are enough for an assault – D stalked V and content of letters was an assault as V read them as threats – therefore other written communications like s and texts can also constitute assault Apply to facts of scenario 2. Cause Usual rules of causation apply – but no issues in this question, too many people spent far too long on this. Explain in 1 sentence and move on 3. Apprehend Longdon v DPP – V’s perception rather than D’s intention is important Apply to facts of scenario 4. Immediate Quite a wide interpretation of this - Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station - immediate does not need to be instantaneous Apply to facts – 20 minutes – but still fearful throughout 5. Unlawful Violence Force apprehended can be a mere touch, provided it is unwanted Must be unlawful – usually due to lack of consent Apply to facts

Assault - MR Matches the AR Savage: – Intention to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence; or – Recklessness as to whether the victim apprehends unlawful and immediate violence Not relevant whether B intended to go to the cinema only whether he intended to make A apprehend that he would Not about whether B intended to send the text – whether he intended the text to make A apprehend immediate unlawful violence

Answering Questions on Assault 1.Was there an act? What was it? 2.Did the act: – Cause (normal causation rules) – V to apprehend – Immediate – Violence/force? 3.Was there intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence

S.47 – Common mistakes Lack of case law Being unclear about the “assault occasioning…” Wasting time on causation – no issues, simple sentence and move on MR – saying that A needed MR to the harm – it is only MR for the battery

S.47 – AR 3 parts: 1. Assault: Must be an assault or battery In this case battery – application of unlawful force 2. Occasioning: Causation – the assault or battery must occasion the harm No issues in this case – punch caused injuries – simple sentence and move on 3. Actual Bodily harm: Must be some form of physical or psychological injury caused to V Miller – “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim” but must be more than “transient or trifling” Chan Fook – harm must be more than trivial Apply to the facts – bruising, unconsciousness, loss of hearing – all injuries at least more than trivial and therefore ABH

S.47 - MR Savage - only need mens rea for the assault or battery D does not need to intend or be reckless as to any harm Venna – MR for battery = Intent or subjective recklessness to apply force to another

S.20/S.18 - AR Once S.47 is established, need to consider whether injuries are sufficient for S.20/S.18 Definition - “Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument” In this case we would consider GBH Saunders – serious harm Unconsciousness, unless prolonged, not sufficient for GBH. Bruising more likely to be ABH. Hearing loss, especially if permanent, could be GBH Brown and Stratton – If V suffers minor injuries which, taken as a whole amount to serious harm, this will constitute GBH despite the fat that the injuries viewed separately would not be GBH In this case there are a combination of injuries so could be GBH

S.20/S.18 - MR S.20: – Cunningham - D must intend to inflict the harm or be subjectively reckless as to whether such harm will occur – Mowatt - Only need MR for some harm, not serious harm (do not need MR for the wound or GBH) – In this case, it would seem that A did intend to cause some harm S.18: – “With intent to do some grievous bodily harm” – Need intent, recklessness not enough – Saunders – D must intend serious harm (compared to some harm in S.20) – In this case, it was a “powerful blow” but only 1 blow, A was suffering from fear and panic – might have prevented him from forming the necessary intention for S.18

Self-Defence – Common Errors Not using Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Not using enough case law Saying it was a partial defence or that it would reduce sentence – total defence if successful

Self Defence Common law but restated in Criminal Justice and Immigration Act A person can use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances if he is: – Defending himself or his property against an actual or imminent attack; or – Defending another against such an attack

Self-Defence - Requirements 1.Necessity: It will be seen to be necessary if it is seen to be so in the circumstances which exist or which D genuinely believed existed (subjective) Gladstone Williams –defence will apply if based on what D genuinely believed was happening In this case, he was mistaken about who was chasing him, but his mistake was genuine Defence comes into operation even if attack has not yet taken place providing it is imminent D can get in with the first blow – Bird - D does not have to wait for an attack to start but can get in the first blow So in this case, it doesn’t matter that A struck C first as long as he believed the attack from C was imminent

Self- Defence – Requirements 2. Reasonableness Jury must decide whether, in all the circumstances, the D used reasonable force Palmer - Must recognise that a person defending themselves “cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action” Was it excessive force like in Clegg or Martin? S.76(6) – the degree of force used by D not to be considered as reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances S.76(7) – guidance as to whether degree of force used was reasonable in the circumstances: – A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and – Evidence of D having only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable force was taken In this case, A had fear of gang violence, there was an apparent chase (as far as A was concerned), he only struck C once without using a weapon – good case for self-defence