R v Venna [1976] QB 421

Recklessness alone can be sufficient mens rea (mental state) for an assault resulting in actual bodily harm, even if the defendant's reckless behavior causes injury to a police officer.

It is appropriate to charge individuals involved in a disturbance at night, characterized by shouting and singing, and where the police intervene, with threatening behavior under Section 5 of the Act, which covers various forms of disorderly conduct and affray in public places.

In the early hours, the defendant and a group of youths caused a disturbance despite police intervention. The defendant resisted arrest violently, leading to a fractured hand of an arresting officer. He faced charges of threatening behavior and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, resulting in conviction.

The appeal claimed the judge erred by allowing recklessness as sufficient mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court upheld this instruction, emphasizing that recklessly causing physical harm constituted the offense.

The court noted that the incident didn't align with the intended scope of the Public Order Act 1936. While the charge was deemed appropriate here, authorities should carefully consider its use, particularly when the facts may not warrant its application.

The court dismissed the appeal and said that recklessness in the use of force sufficed to establish the required mental element for forming the intent to commit a criminal assault. Therefore, the judge's instructions were accurate and valid.

In the early hours, the defendant and a group of youths caused a disturbance despite police intervention. The defendant resisted arrest violently, leading to a fractured hand of an arresting officer. He faced charges of threatening behavior and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, resulting in conviction.

The appeal claimed the judge erred by allowing recklessness as sufficient mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court upheld this instruction, emphasizing that recklessly causing physical harm constituted the offense.

The court noted that the incident didn't align with the intended scope of the Public Order Act 1936. While the charge was deemed appropriate here, authorities should carefully consider its use, particularly when the facts may not warrant its application.

The court dismissed the appeal and said that recklessness in the use of force sufficed to establish the required mental element for forming the intent to commit a criminal assault. Therefore, the judge's instructions were accurate and valid.

A youth was resisting arrest and fell to the ground. He kicked a police officer who was trying to pick him up, fracturing the policeman’s hand. 

He was convicted of occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). His appeal was dismissed on the grounds that recklessness was a sufficient mental element to form the necessary intent of a criminal assault. An injury inflicted recklessly constituted the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. 

Judge said that he couldn’t understand why the crown put forward recklessness as opposed to intent (which there clearly was). 

Nevertheless, in many cases the dividing line between intent and recklessness is barely perceptible and furthermore they see no reason why one who risks injuring another person should not be made liable (there being no parliamentary guidance on the matter).