#17259 - Offences Against The Person - GDL Criminal Law

A ladder of offences, in ascending levels of seriousness

• Common Assault and Common Battery

  • Common law offences whose punishment is prescribed in s. 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

• S.47 Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)

  • S. 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

• S.20 Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm (GBH)

  • S. 20 OAPA 1861

• S.18 Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm (GBH with Intent)

  • S. 18 OAPA 1861 – same fault as for murder.

Defined by Lord Hope in Ireland and Burstow [1998] (conjoined appeals), following Fagan v MPC [1969]

• “an assault is any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence”

• “a battery is any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful personal violence upon another.”

Penalties for these are prescribed in s. 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Mens Rea Elements

• Lord Hope: intentionally or recklessly

• Supported in R v Venne [1975] – man during arrest kicked wildly, injuring policeman. Contended this was not intentional.

  • Held that the MR may be intention or recklessness.

• Cunningham Recklessness applies.

• R v Richardson [1998] – dentist carried on practice after suspension of his licence. Patients stated they would not have consented to the treatment had they known she had been suspended.Held that the patients had consented to the treatment, there was no fraud as to the identity of dentist merely their right to practice dentistry.

Actus Reus of Assault

• “Any act” this can include words alone and silence

  • Tuberville v Savage (1669) – Defendant drew sword and said: if it were not for the judges being in town I would run you through.

    • Words may negative what may otherwise be an assault.

  • R v Wilson [1955] – before a fight broke out D shouted ‘get out the knives’

    • Held words alone constituted an assault.

  • R v Ireland [1998] – D made a series of silent phone calls to a number of women.

    • Lord Hope: Silent telephone calls are just as capable as words or gestures in the presence of the victim of causing apprehension of immediate violence.

• “Apprehend” is given ordinary English definition or ‘understand’ or ‘percieve’.

  • It is not mere ‘fear’ of assault.

  • Irrelevant if D is actually able to carry out the assault.

    • Logdon v DPP – D pointed fake gun at a woman. Assault.

  • There cannot be an assault if D does not apprehend the threat.

    • R v Lamb – supra unlawful act manslaughter. Boys did not apprehend danger.

• “Immediate and unlawful violence”

  • If the threat is for some time in the future it is not an assault (Tuberville v Savage).

  • Immediacy is given a wide definition

    • R v Ireland [1998] – fear of ‘immanent’ personal violence was sufficient for immediacy.

    • R v Constanza [1997] - Defendants had bombarded the victim with unsolicited letters and telephone calls, following her around for c. 2years.

      • CA held there can be an assault where the apprehension of violence extended over a longer period. Immediate was defined as ‘some time not excluding the immediate future’

  • Court will take into account terror of victim/inability to think clearly

    • Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police (1983) – V in night apparel opened curtain to see D staring in.

      • Held court was entitled to conclude that the victim in these circumstances apprehended immediate violence, despite practical obstacles as she may not have been thinking clearly.

Actus Reus of Battery

• Battery can occur by omission

  • Namely through the creation of dangerous situations

  • DPP v Santa-Bermudez [2003] - Police officer stabs herself with hypodermic needle during the course of a stop and search.

    • Held that force can be applied indirectly for the purposes of a battery. E.g. laying a trap for the victim.

• Victim need not see the force coming.

• Force includes any touching however slight:

  • Collins v Wilcock [1984] – woman held by police officer without having been put under arrest. Battery.

  • R v Thomas – [1985] caretaker held onto a girls clothes without actually touching her body. Battery was applied through the clothes.

• This is a continuing offence, so can include deliberate failure to remove a force that was initially applied without MR:

  • Fagan v MPC (1968) – D accidentally drove onto policeman’s foot. Refused to move off. Argued he had no coincidence of actus and mens. As a continuing act held laible.

• The force may be applied indirectly:

  • Haystead v. CC of Derbyshire [2000] – D punched V causing V to drop baby, injuring baby. Charged with assault of both V and baby.

    • Court held there was a causal link between the unlawful act and the force applied to the baby when it struck the floor.

  • DPP v K (1990) – 15yo stole sulphuric acid from chemistry, hid it in hand drier. V was permanently scarred when it blew into his hands and face. Indirect force was sufficient.

S.47 OAPA

The level of ‘harm’ required is not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant:

• R v Donovan [1934]: consensual sexual caning case.

  • Swift J: “….any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the prosecutor.”

• R vChan Fook[1994]– Landlady accused student lodger of stealing from her. She struck him. locked him in and threatened him.

  • Held ABH could not stand. The injury need not be permanent but should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant.

  • Feelings of fear and panic are emotions and not ‘harm.’ Without medical evidence to support recognised psychiatric condition a conviction for ABH could not stand.

• R v Burstow [1998] – D made silent telephone calls, abusive calls, stalked her etc. V suffered severe depression as a result.

  • Held psychiatric harm amounted to bodily harm under OAPA (applies for s.20 and s.18 as well).

• R (T) v DPP [2003] – loss of consciousness amounts to ABH.

The hair counts as part of the body:

• DPP v Smith [2006] – D pushed ex-girlfriend down onto bed and cut off her ponytail.

  • Sir Igor Judge: “an individual's hair is relevant to his or her autonomy. Some regard it as their crowning glory.”

For the MR of ABH only need demonstrate D intended some harm.

• R v Savage [1992] – D threw a pint of beer at V. The glass slipped from her hand cutting V’s wrist.

  • Lord Ackner: the MR element for s.47 ABH is the same as that for assault and battery. It was not necessary to demonstrate the defendant had themens reain relation to level of harm inflicted.

Defining a ‘wound’

• C (a minor) v Eisenhower [1984] – D fired airgun into crowd. This hit V in the face, bruising them.

  • Goff LJ: a wound requires: ‘a break in the continuity of the whole skin’, i.e. both layer of the skin cut, external bleeding, bruising is not enough.

Defining GBH:

• DPP v Smith [2006] – ‘really serious’ bodily harm.

• Can be psychological as well as physical.

• R v Bollom [2003] -series of cuts and bruises on a small child. Held that injuries should be taken in their totality. Lots of small injuries can amount to GBH.

• Ireland and Burstow [1998] – Psychiatric violence can rise to the level of GBH as it refers to the integrity of the whole person. Bodily integrity means the whole body.

‘Inflict’

• R v Burstow [1998] – D made silent telephone calls, abusive calls, stalked her etc. V suffered severe depression as a result.

  • Held the word 'inflict' in s.20 simply means cause....