This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

GDL Law Notes GDL Criminal Law Notes

Non Fatal Offences Against The Person Notes

Updated Non Fatal Offences Against The Person Notes

GDL Criminal Law Notes

GDL Criminal Law

Approximately 551 pages

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:

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

_______________________________________________________

Assault

Actus Reus

Collins v Wilcock

  • Lord Goff: “An act which intentionally and directly causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force”

What type of force?

R v Ireland and Burstow

D had a brief relationship with V which she ended; he then stalker her & smashed her car - and broke into her house. Stole her letters & carried out an extensive catalogue of harassment.

V suffered a nervous breakdown.

Held: there is no need for physical contact to found liability for assault

HOWEVER the apprehension must be of physical, not psychological, damage (R v Ireland and Burstow)

Whose perception of force?

R v Beasley

Held: apprehension does NOT conform to the take your victim as you find them line of cases with causation – it is an objective test

‘Unlawful’ force:

This excludes acts where the doctrines of necessity, self-defence and consent operate (which make force lawful)

‘Immediate’ force has been interpreted widely (Smith v Superintendent of Woking)

Mens Rea

R v Venna: assault as a crime of intention or recklessness

  • Intention uses the general R v Moloney definition per Lord Bridge - a direct aim, purpose or want

  • Recklessness – R v Savage confirms that Cunningham recklessness is used (see Mens Rea doc)

Battery

Fagan v MPC defines battery as the actual application of unlawful force to another person without their consent

Actus Reus

The unlawful application of force (R v Ireland and Burstow)

Collins v Wilcock

A police woman grabbed a woman’s arm to stop her walking away during questioning – the woman then scratched her

Held: the police woman had battered the woman as the merest touch might constitute an assault. The scratch was then self-defence. HOWEVER confirms that ordinary, everyday levels of contact are not usually a battery

R v Thomas

  • Ackner LJ: contact can be through clothing for an assault

Faulkner v Talbot

  • Lord Lane: no requirement of hostility or aggression alongside the application of force

Can be a crime of omission (see Actus Reus doc - Fagan v MPC & R v Santana Bermudez)

Mens Rea

Intention or recklessness

ABH

S.47 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861

Actus Reus

Assault/Battery + causation + actual bodily harm

Actual bodily harm:

R v Miller

A soon to be divorced couple were due to have their petition heard when the husband had intercourse with the wife against her will and physically assaulted her causing a serious psychological reaction

Held: the upcoming divorce didn’t affect the marital consent exception which negatived his liability for rape (since overruled in R v R thank god) however he was found liable for ABH – damage can be non-physical

  • Lynsky J: "actual bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim" – it must be “more than transient and trifling” however

Examples of harm amounting to ABH:

  • Recognised psychiatric harm (R v Ireland and Burstow)

  • Temporary loss of consciousness (T v DPP)

  • Cutting off someone’s hair (DPP v Smith per Sir Igor Judge)

  • See CPS charging standards for likely qualifying injuries

Mens Rea

Intention/recklessness as to the assault or battery – it is NOT a requirement that D intended/was reckless as to occasioning ABH (R v Savage)

GBH

S.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Actus Reus

Unlawfully wounding/inflicting grevious bodily harm

DPP v Smith – ‘grievous’ bodily harm = really serious harm

Wound:

C (a minor) v Eisenhower

Held: wounding is only where both layers of skin are broken – internal bleeding alone will not amount to GBH

Inflict:

The old law found in R v Clarence was that there couldn’t be a GBH where there was no hostily for a battery - this has now been changed and R v Wilson confirms that an aggressive act is not required for GBH

R v Ireland and Burstow (above)

Held: (HL) in the context of the infliction of GBH we don’t need to show a battery nor aggressiveness / no need to show direct or indirect violence against the body. The word ‘infliction’ includes recognisable psychiatric harm i.e. body means the whole person including the mind.

Mens Rea

S.20 of the Act talks about malicious intention or being reckless to causing some harm

R v Savage

  • Per Lord Ackner: ‘foresight of some physical harm, albeit minor, and D goes ahead inflicting more serious harm’

Thus D must only foresee that some harm might result, he doesn’t need to foresee that actual harm occurs or the gravity of that harm

S.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Actus Reus

Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm

(See S.20 for definitions)

Mens Rea

Intention to cause grievous bodily harm i.e. recklessness will not be sufficient for a S.18

Disease Transmission as GBH?

R v Dica

Dica is the 1st appellate case that decided that the transmission of HIV, which D had recklessly infected two previous partners with without disclosure of his status, which determined a S.20 (infliction of GBH).

Held: decision in Clarence was expressly overruled. GBH could be transmitted through sex; D, knowing they were infected, had recklessly infected others. There was no informed consent to the risk of infection.

R v Golding

Summer 2009 D & V formed a relationship. D knew he had herpes virus; at the beginning of the relationship V was not infected. Acknowledged that he should have told the victim

Held: at first instance, S. 20 14 months imprisonment. Appeal: that the virus was not really within the scope of GBH & that there was insufficient evidence that he has recklessly transmitted the harm. Sentence reduced to 3 months, but they upheld the conviction.

  • Genital herpes does = really serious bodily harm

  • Re: recklessness; up to the jury to decide.

Racial/Religious Motives

Penalty of 7 years rather than 5 for racially motivated crimes. Imprisonment goes up to 2 years.

However, in some cases the courts have adopted a narrow meaning of whether a crime is racially motivated.

DPP v Pal

V was a...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Criminal Law Notes.

More GDL Criminal Law Samples