1. Assault
Definition - Ireland – D intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. Summary only offence. Maximum sentence – 6 months imprisonment and/or fine
What was the act?
Constanza – written words enough
Ireland – words are enough
Ireland – Silence can amount to an assault
Tuberville v Savage – words can prevent an assault
Did V apprehend?
Don’t need fear – just apprehension – expectation or anticipation
If V doesn’t apprehend immediate force, assault has not been committed – Lamb
Doesn’t matter if D made his threat as a joke if V believed him – Logdon
Immediate?
Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station - immediate does not need to be instantaneous
Unlawful violence?
V does not need to apprehend any injury, pain or harm. Force apprehended can be a mere touch, provided it is unwanted
Was there intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence:
Savage - Intention or recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence; or
Cunningham recklessness applies – D must realise that his acts or words could cause V to apprehend violence – must foresee the risk and take it anyway

2. Battery
Definition - Ireland – AR = Application of unlawful physical force to another. Summary only offence. Maximum sentence – 6 months imprisonment and/or fine
Was there force?
Collins v Willcock – “any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to battery”
Thomas – touching clothes amounted to battery
Was the force unlawful?
Force is lawful if V consents (e.g. sport, medical procedures)
Everyday contact is lawful - Collins v Willcock – all those who move about society have given implied consent to the physical contacts of ordinary life as they have exposed themselves to bodily contact
(is there any issue with indirect battery? DPP v K – battery can be indirect – schoolboy put acid in a hot air drier and another pupil was injured)
Did D intend or was he subjectively reckless to apply force?
Venna – MR = Intent or subjective recklessness to apply force to another

3. S.47 Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
Definition - S.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. Either way offence
Was there an assault (assault or battery)? (explain and apply this first)
Is there causation? The assault or battery must occasion the harm:
Look for causation issues – factual causation (“but for”), legal causation (operating and substantial cause), NAI by 3rd party or V, thin skull rule
Is there actual bodily harm?
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
Chan Fook – harm includes psychiatric harm but must be an identifiable clinical condition
Is there mens rea for either assault or battery?:
Roberts – only need mens rea for the assault or battery – D does not need to intend or foresee the risk of any harm
Savage – D threw beer at another girl, glass slipped, cutting the victim. Throwing of beer was battery (applying unlawful force) and she intended to throw it so had MR for battery – liable for S.47

4. S.20 Inflicting Wounding or Grievous Bodily Harm
Definition - S.20 Offences Against the Person Act “Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm”. Either way offence. Maximum sentence – 5 years’ imprisonment
Is there either:
An unlawful wounding; or
Wounding = both layers of skin are broken, usually an open wound causing blood loss
JCC v Eisenhower – wound requires a “break in the continuity of the skin”- internal bleeding not sufficient
An unlawful infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm?
Saunders – GBH meand serious harm
Burstow – serious psychiatric harm could be GBH
Bollom – effect on the victim can affect the charge (if vulnerable – elderly, young child, disabled)
Brown and Stratton - If V suffers minor injuries which, taken as a whole amount to serious harm, this will constitute GBH
Did D intend to inflict some harm or was he subjectively reckless as to whether such harm would occur?
Cunningham - Maliciously has been interpreted to mean 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)
Parmenter – D not liable for S.20 as he had not foreseen the risk of any harm – D must foresee that he might cause some harm

5. S.18 Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent
Definition - S.18 Offences Against the Person Act “Unlawfully and maliciously wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person”. Indictable only. Maximum sentence – life imprisonment
Is there either:
An unlawful wounding; or
Same as S.20 (see previous slide)
An unlawful infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm?
Did D intend to Cause serious harm
Need intent, recklessness not enough
Saunders – D must intend serious harm (compared to some harm in S.20)