CRIMINAL LAW II

WORKSHEET #4 NON-FATAL OFFENCES Suzanne Goldson 2011

NON-FATAL OFFENCES: Assault

Common Law: Actus Reus Tuberville v Savage (1669) Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)

NON-FATAL OFFENCES: Assault contd.

1. An assault is any act which intentionally or possibly recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. 2. A mere omission to act cannot amount to an assault 3. Both the actus reus and the mens rea must be present at the same time.

NON-FATAL OFFENCES: Assault contd

Can words amount to an assault? R v Ireland (1997) R v Constanza (1997) It is enough that the victim fears force at some time in the future, including the immediate future.

NON-FATAL OFFENCES: Assault contd

Assault Mens Rea R v Savage and Parmenter (1991) 1. Is a verdict of guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm a permissible alternative verdict on a count alleging unlawful wounding contrary to section 20 (Ja S. 22) of the OAPA? Yes.

NON-FATAL OFFENCES: Assault contd

2. Can a verdict of assault occasioning actual bodily harm be returned upon proof of an assault together with proof of the fact that actual bodily harm was occasioned by the assault, or must the prosecution also prove that the D intended to cause some actual bodily harm or was reckless to whether such harm would be caused?

NON-FATAL OFFENCES: Assault contd

The verdict of assault occasioning actual bodily harm may be returned upon proof of an assault together with proof, of the fact that actual bodily harm was occasioned by the assault. The prosecution are not obliged to prove that the D intended to cause some actual bodily harm or was reckless as to whether such harm would be caused.

NON-FATAL OFFENCES: Assault contd

3. In order to establish an offence under s.20 (Ja. S. 22 OAPA) must the prosecution prove that the D actually foresaw that his act would cause harm, or is it sufficient to prove that, he ought so to have forseen? The prosecution must prove that the D actually foresaw that his act would cause harm.

NON-FATAL OFFENCES: Assault contd

4. In order to establish an offence under S. 20 (Ja S. 22 OAPA) is it sufficient to prove that the D intended or foresaw the risk of some physical harm or must he intend or forsee either wounding or grievous bodily harm? It is enough that he should have forseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit or a minor character, might result.

NON-FATAL OFFENCES: Battery

Battery Actus Reus Causing the application of unlawful force to the body of another. The slightest degree of force even mere touching will suffice. DPP v Sanatana-Bermudez (2004) Where someone by act or word or a combination of the two creates a danger and thereby exposes someone to a reasonably forseeable risk of injury which materialises, there is an evidential basis for the actus reus of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm and therefore for the assault or battery required for such an offence.

NON-FATAL OFFENCES: Battery

Battery Mens Rea Intention to apply unlawful force to the body of another person, or was reckless as to whether such force might be applied. Wilson v Pringle (1986) hostile? Collins v Wilcock (1984) Brown (1994) Hostile = Unlawful

ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM

S. 43 JA OAPA 1. Prosecution must prove the commission of the actus reus of an assault or battery 2. Prosecution must prove that the assault or battery cause actual bodily harm Chan-Fook - Harm is a synonym for injury and is not limited to the skin, flesh and bones but includes psychiatric injury.

Wounding and Grievous Bodily Harm

S. 22 Ja OAPA Grievous bodily harm really serious and includes psychiatric injury Ireland v Burstow Application of force is not required for inflicted. Ireland v Burstow Wounding The inner and outer skin must actually be broken C (a minor) v Eisenhower maliciously intention or recklessness

Wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm

S. 20 Ja OAPA Causing is wider than inflicting No assault needed. Savage and Parmenter