Non Fatal Offences

Non Fatal Offences

1. Assault

   • Charged under s.39 of the Criminal Justice act 1988
     • Common law assault and battery shall be summary offences and a person guilty of either shall be liable to a fine or a max prison term of 6 months
   • Actus Reus
     • An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person (Collins v Wilcock)
       • there must be an act to cause the apprehension
       • Immediate can also mean looking through a window (Smith v Woking Police)
     • Genuine apprehension of force is required (Lamb)
     • An ommission will not suffice (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commisioner)
   • Revealing a gun will constitute assault (Lodgon v DPP)
   • Threatenting letters can be an assault (Constanza)
   • Silent phone calls can also be an assault (Ireland)
   • Empty threat will not constitute an assault (Tuberville v Savage)
   • The act must be unlawful i.e. no consent (Slingsby)
   • Mens Rea
     • Intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful personal force (Venna)
     • Recklessness is subjective
     • Intoxicated Behavior will constitute recklessness (Majewski)

2. Battery

   • Also charged under s.39 of Criminal Justice act 1988
   • Actus Reus
     • A battery is the actual infliction of of unlawful force an another person (Collins v Wilcock)
       • Touching of another person however slight may amount to battery
     • Touching a victims skirt was equivalent to touching victim in (Thomas)
     • Touching must be hostile (Wilson v Pringle)
     • If the touching was unlawful, it is more likely to be hostile (Brown)
     • Defendant does not have to touch the victim (R v Martin) Shouting fire in crowded theather
       • Indirect battery is treated as if the defendant performed a direct battery (DPP v K)
       • Hitting an adult that drops a child is equivelant to indirect battery (Haystead v CC of derbyshire
   • Can be committed by an ommission
     • if the defendant creates a dangerous situation by omitting to say or do anything, he will be liable for the harm that results (miller)
     • if someone creates a danger and thus exposes another to a reasonably forseeable risk of injury which occurs there is an evidential basis for actus reu
       • DPP v Santana-Bermudez
   • Victim can consent to assault and battery (Brown)
     • Victim must consent to both nature and quality of the act (Tabassum)
       • Consent is implied for the ordinary jostlings of everyday life (Collins v Wilcock and Wilson v Pringle)
         • Police can use reasonable force to arrest a defendant (Wood (Fraser) v DPP)
   • Mens rea
     • Intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful force (Venna)

3. Actual Bodily Harm

   • When an assault or battery causes an injury, the defendant will be charged with actual bodily harm
     • Charged under s.47 of the offences against the person act (1861)
   • Actus Reus
     • Must cause any hurt or injury designed to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim (Miller 1954)
       • Bruising, Scratching, Grazing, Fractures, Concussion
       • Psychiatric injury will also suffice (Chan Fook)
         • Bodily injury may include any part of the body responsible for mental and other faculties
         • Will require a recognised psychiatric illness (Burstow)
         • Years of Domestic abuse will not suffice (Dhaliwal)
   • Mens rea
     • If defendant performs the actus reus and mens rea of battery and it leads to injury, he will have all element for ABH (Roberts)
     • Victim can consent if it falls under special exceptions of attorney generals reference no 6 (1980)
       • Properly conducted games or sports, lawful chastisement or correction, reaosnable surgical interference and other dangerous exhibitions
         • Conduct beyond what is accepted may be criminal i.e. a particularly grave injury (Barnes (2005)
       • Mistaken belief in consent may be a defence (Jones)
   • Triable either way with max terms of 5 years

4. Malicous Wounding

   • Charged Under s.20 of OAPA 1861
     • Triable either way with max term being 5 years
   • Actus Reus
     • Unlawful
     • Wound
       • Must break through all the layers of the skin and cannot include internal bleeding (JCC v Eisenhower)
       • Broken bone will not constitute a wound unless skin is broken (Wood)
     • Inflict Grevious bodily harm
       • Inflict does not require an assault (Beasley) (Burstow)
         • Inflict simply means cause
       • GBH simply means really serious harm but does not have to be life threatening (DPP v Smith)
         • Jury can be directed as to serious Harm (Saunders)
       • Age, Heath and other factors can be considered when determining whether injuries amount to GBH (Bollom)
       • Biological GBH now exists as a result of Dica
       • Severe depressive illness can now be GBH (Burstow)
   • Mens Rea
     • 'Malicously' (s.20 OAPA 1861)
       • Intentionally
         • (Cunningham)
       • Recklessly
         • Cunningham
       • Does not have to forsee that it will be grevious (Mowatt) (Parmenter)
         • It is enough that D foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor charecter, might result (Mowatt)

5. Grevious Bodily Harm With Intent

   • Charged under s.18 of OAPA 1861
     • Max sentence is life imprisonment
       • indictable to crown court for trial
   • Actus Reus
     • Unlawful
     • Wound
     • Cause grevious bodily harm
   • Mens Rea
     • There must be a specific Intent
       • Therefore, the word malicously can be disregarded (Mowatt)
   • GBH must be a virtual certainty and the defendant must realise that this is the case (Nedrick) (Woolin)

6. Racially Motivated Assault

   • Under s.29 of crime & disorder act 1998, term of imprisonment will be incresd to represent the hostility towards a particular racial or religous group

7. Administering Poison