GDL Law Notes GDL Criminal Law Notes
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Criminal Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Assault and Battery
Penalty for Assault/Battery: 5,000/6 months in prison – both in S39 CJA 1988
Common law or statutory offences?
Criminal Justice Act 1988 s39 – but only sets the penalty – doesn’t explain AR or MR
DPP v Little: judges here think that they are statutory offences
But – still need to give common law explanations – so easier to think of it as a common law offence
Assault
Committed when the accused ‘intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’
Actus Reus
An assault is committed when the accused ‘intentionally, or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence;’ Fagan v MPC: confirmed by Hl in R v Ireland, Burstow
There must be apprehension of personal violence
The D must do something to make the V apprehend (ie anticipate, believe) he will suffer immediate and unlawful personal violence- no need for D to have actually applied force
The defendant must cause the victim to believe he can and will carry out the threat of force
R v Lamb
Revolver had 2 bullets in it– believing that it was safe – the D pointed it at his friend and pulled the trigger – his friend was shot dead
No assault because the victim did not fear violence
if the victim is caused to apprehend such a threat, it is irrelevant that the defendant does not in fact have the means to carry out the threat
Logdon v DPP: D found to have committed assault against V by showing her a pistol in a drawer saying that it was loaded and claiming he would hold her hostage – only the D knew that the gun was a replica and unloaded – but his actions/words caused the victim to believe otherwise
What if the victim is unusually sensitive?
Doesn’t matter – thin skull rule
Can the threat to use force be of any nature/form?
Earlier dicta - R v Mead & Belt: ‘no words or singing could ever constitute an assault’ per Holroyd J
But opinion has changed - R v Wilson: the words ‘get out the knives’ would on their own be sufficient to constitute an assault’
R v Ireland/Burstow: Accused had made several silent phone calls
Lord Steyn said the proposition that words won’t suffice is ‘unrealistic and indefensible’ : held here that silence conveyed a message to the victim as was as such capable of forming the basis of assault – indirectly confirms that words spoken may amount to an assault
A thing said is a thing done – so words alone can amount to assault
Words spoken can also negate an assault: Tuberville v Savage
The threat of violence must be unlawful: occasionally it will be considered lawful (e.g. self-defence/consent)
The violence apprehended must be immediate and personal
Focus on what the V actually apprehended
Smith v Chief Superintendent Woking Police Station: Smith entered grounds of large house - stared through window of the bedsit where the victim lived – she thought he was going to attack her: D argued that threat wasn’t immediate as he could not have got through the window etc.
but court said it was assault – V cannot be expected to be rational in that situation
R v Constanza: stalker pursued victim for 18 months – followed her home from work on numerous occasions, made silent phone calls, sent and delivered 800 letters to her home; charge of assault arose from 2 particular letters sent in June 1995 – CA said that the key thing is that there must be a threat of violence not excluding in the immediate future – hand-delivered, so he must be close – violence could happen at any time
Ireland/Burstow
Ireland: heavy breathing down the phone - question of immediacy Lord Steyn – ‘fear may dominate her emotions … she may fear the possibility of immediate personal violence’ – victim not necessarily thinking logically so fears there could be immediate personal violence
Almost re-writes the test – rather than apprehension of immediate personal violence – could be immediate apprehension of personal violence
Change hasn’t actually happened - but seems courts will take liberal view
Mens Rea
Fagan – ‘an assault is any act which intentionally or possibly recklessly – causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’
R v Venna: recklessness could be enough for the MR
R v Savage;Parmenter: confirmed the view that Cunningham recklessness must be established
Direct Intention: See Chapter 3 – Maloney: Lord Bridge – ordinary meaning – “desire/motive”
Cunningham recklessness: subjective: D must actually know of the existence of the risk and have deliberately taken it anyway
Battery
Fagan v MPC– ‘the actual … use of unlawful force to another person without his consent’
Actus Reus
Ireland/Burstow: Lord Steyn – ‘the unlawful application of force by the defendant upon the victim’
“Force”
Doesn’t need degree of violence
Can Collins v Wilcock: Goff LJ: fundamental principle is that any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to a battery
Touching clothes can be enough – R v Thomas: involved sexual assault: ran his hand along the hem of a girl’s skirt – he said he never touched her
No hostility required: Faulkner v Talbot: D had consensual sex with 14 year old boy– still a battery even though no hostile intent
Don’t have to touch the person yourself - indirect application enough
Haystead v DPP: D pushed a woman who dropped a baby – D caused the baby to be dropped
DPP v K: stole sulphuric acid – poured it into hand dryer - went over another boy’s face – didn’t matter that he wasn’t in the room – he had caused it
The force must be unlawful: common claim is that the V consented to the application of force
Collins v Wilcock: Lord Goff - a certain amount of physical contact must inevitably be accepted
Failure to act: Fagan –act can be viewed as a continuing act
R v Santana Bermudez: said he did not have any needles or ‘sharps’ etc. in his pocket – but he did –charged with battery: court applied R v Roberts and R v Miller: held that he...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Criminal Law Notes.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started