1. Non fatal offences against the person

2. Assaults There are four types of assaults to consider. What a particular defendant will be charged with will depend upon a number of factors as follows: 1. Whether or not the victim was injured 2. If they were injured how serious the injuries were 3. The culpability of the defendant ( in other words the level of blameworthy state of mind of the defendant)

3. Some general points Remember that assaults are result crimes. This means that the prosecution must always prove a causal link between the act of the D.and the outcome. Always consider factual causation first followed by legal causation When discussing assaults in a scenario start by discussing the least serious offences first. You may want to discuss a number of assault options rather than feel you need to identify one assault charge Always go through the actus reus first then go on to the mens rea

4. Common assault This phrase covers two offences and they represent the least serious offences These offences are common law offences although the maximum sentences are found under section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 Both offences are summary only and are subject to prison sentence of 6 months maximum

5. Common assault This category is divided into 2 offences of assault and battery Definition of assault is ‘ An act which causes V. to apprehend immediate unlawful force with an intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful violence or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused So the ‘assault is technical since no actual touching is necessary This offence will be committed if a person rushes up to someone saying they are going to kill them and then stops just before hitting the victim

6. Assault Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station D broke into a garden and looked through V’s bedroom window on the ground floor at 11pm.V was terrified. The D.was convicted of assault because the female victim feared what he would do next Other examples-Raising a fist as though to hit V,throwing a stone at V.which just misses, pointing a loaded gun at someone within range

7. Common assault The second and more common charge under this category is battery. Remember that often a battery will follow an assault so if this has occurred CPS will always charge the more serious offence of battery Definition of battery –The application of unlawful force to another intending to apply unlawful force to another or being reckless as to whether such force is applied The force only needs to be slight ( Collins V Wicock 1984)/Wood ( Fraser ) v DPP ( 2008) There doesn’t need to any injury but minor injuries such as grazes, scratches and minor bruising will be charged as a battery

8. Test yourself Read pages 107-114 of your core text and summarise the key differences between assault and battery in a table

9. Actual Bodily Harm This is an either way offence. The maximum sentence is 5 years imprisonment The offence is found under section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 The actus reus =  an assault or battery  Which occasions ( causes)  Actual bodily harm

10. Actual Bodily Harm Mens Rea = Same as for common assault namely intention or recklessness so there is no requirement to prove an extra element of mens rea for this offence

11. Actual Bodily Harm Part of the actus reus is the occasioning of actual bodily harm The definition of this is ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim’ ( Miller ( 1954) Chan Fook (1994) stated it must be more than ‘transient or trifling’ So ABH can be charged where there is any injury Examples include bruising,abrasions,swellings,a black eye, psychological harm, breaking of tooth etc.

12. Actual Bodily Harm Read pages 114-116 and answer the following questions 1. What type of injury occurred in T v DPP (2003)? 2. Which case set out that psychiatric injury can amount to ABH? 3. What is the principle arising from the case of Roberts (1971)? Remember that you will find the most up-to-date cases on CPS website, where you will also find the charging standards

13. Malicious wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm This offence is an either way offence( punishment up to 5 years) It is found under section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Actus reus:  Wounding or  Inflicting GBH

14. S.20 OAPA 1861 A wound means to cut all the layers of the skin ( so a scratch will not suffice) Grievous bodily harm means ‘really serious harm’( R v Saunders(1985) The word ‘inflict’ simply means that D’s actions have led to the consequence of V. suffering GBH

15. S.20 OAPA 1861 Mens Rea  Intending some injury ( but not serious injury) or  Being reckless as to whether any injury was inflicted The actual word used in section 20 is maliciously but this has been taken to mean intention or recklessness as above. It doesn’t require proof of any ill will towards the person injured

16. Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent This is an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment Actus reus=  Wounding or  Causing GBH The meanings of the above are the same as for Section 20.The only difference in the actus reus is the use of the word ‘cause’ instead of ‘inflict’.

17. Wounding or causing GBH with intent Mens Rea=  Intention to cause GBH So, for section 20 OAPA 1861 the offence can be committed by intending or being reckless as to some injury being inflicted. For section 18 the offence cannot be committed recklessly and additionally D must intend really serious harm

18. Examples of when S.18 assault will be charged Injury resulting in permanent disability or permanent loss of sensory function Injury resulting in more than minor permanent,visible disfigurement Broken bones including fractured skull Injuries which cause a substantial loss of blood Injuries resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity

19. Test yourself Read pages 116-120 of you core text and answer the following questions 1. What was said in the case of JJC Eisenhower (1983)? 2. What is the principle arising from the case of Bollom ( 2004)? 3. Outline the facts in the case of Burstow (1997) 4. Section 18 is a specific intent offence. What does this mean? What is the significance of this?

20. Which offence? Look at these scenarios. Decide which offence would be charged. Justify your answer 1. John rushes up to Jane waving his fist in anger 2. Emily pushes Jason with an open palm causing no injury 3. Ben stabs Paul in the chest. Paul survives but has serious internal injuries and is hospitalised for three months 4. Jackie punches Alf causing a black eye 5. Tim punches Tony. Tony falls to the ground and Tim continues to punch and kick Tony whilst Tony is on the ground

21. A flowchart Using A3 paper create a detailed flowchart of the four offences setting out clearly the actus reus and mens rea for each offence. Remember to include cases and examples from the CPS charging standards of what types of facts would result in which charge

22. Reform The Law Commission made proposals for reform identifying some key problem areas in this area of the law as follows: 1) The Act is very old-When the Act was created much less was known about mental health problems for example. This meant that for a while no-one was sure whether offences were committed when mental harm was caused 2) The language in the Act is in need of modernising-Section 20 refers to ‘maliciously’ yet has nothing to do with D acting deliberately and with ill-will

23. Reform 3) There is inconsistency between the offences In particular section 47 has the same Mens rea as assault/battery and yet the maximum sentences for these offences vary See www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission/index.htm for an up-date on current work by the law commission on non-fatal offenceswww.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission/index.htm

24. Consent as a defence Consent is a defence which can only apply to non- fatal offences against the person. It applies in very limited circumstances and is a full defence which means that if proven D.would be acquitted of the charge Other defences to these types of charges might be self-defence ( most commonly),intoxication, duress etc. Consent can never be a defence to murder!!!

25. The general rules on consent The general rules on consent were confirmed by HOL in Brown( 1993) as follows: Consent can be a defence to assault or battery which does not involve ABH or greater harm Consent is not a defence to situations where D. causes V. ABH or greater harm unless one of the public interest exceptions to the general rules apply. So, consent generally cannot be a defence to offences under S.18,S.20 and S.47 OAPA 1861

26. Consent- The details For the defence to operate it must be shown that V was able to consent and did actually consent. Consent can be either express or implied In relation to medical procedures consent is given via a consent form Where the patient is unconscious the defence of necessity may apply

27. Consent- The details For this defence to be established the court must be satisfied that the victim of the assault truly consented based upon real understanding of the facts rather than based upon a deception Tabassum( 2000)- D persuaded women to allow him to measure their breasts for the purpose of preparing a database. They consented only because they thought he was a doctor Consent may also not be classed to be ‘real’ where it is given through fear. In the case of Olugboja(1982) the court said that when a victim 'consented ‘ to intercourse this was not the same as mere submission

28. Implied consent There are situations where the courts imply consent to minor touchings which would otherwise be a battery Wilson v Pringle ( 1987)- Held: Ordinary ‘jostlings’ of everyday life are not battery This also applies to contact sports such as rugby where the person who ‘assaults’ is behaving within the rules of the game Barnes ( 2004) Held: where an injury is caused during a match a criminal prosecution should be reserved for those situations where the conduct was sufficiently grave to be properly categorised as criminal

29. Consent to minor injuries Consent can only apply to an offence of battery or in limited circumstances to an offence of ABH In the Attorney General’s Reference ( No.6 of 1980)the court of appeal set out the circumstances where consent might be a defence to Actual Bodily Harm as follows: Properly conducted games and sports Reasonable surgical interference Other situations which might arise which are in the public interest

30. Cases Look up the following cases: 1) Br own ( 1993) 2) Wiffin v Kincard (1807) 3) Rice ( 1903) 4) Attorney General’s Reference ( No.6 of 1980) 5) Bradshaw ( 1878) 6) Blisset ( 1992) 7) Corbett v Corbett ( 1971) 8) Wilson ( 1996) 9) Dica ( 2004)

31. LA 4 Exam Questions ‘ Consent is rarely a defence to a crime’ Critically evaluate this statement ( 25 marks) To what extent can consent be a defence to a crime? ( 25 marks)