NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSONLecture 7 (November 26th.) 2. Offences against the Person (assault and battery).
We may start by noting the title of the legislation which governs the more serious non-fatal offences:the Offences against the Person Act 1861.This old and unsatisfactory legislation (hereafter the OAPA) isstill, alas, very much with us.An important point of interpretation is relevant throughout the OAPA: when it uses the wordmaliciously it means with foresight of the possibility of the consequences which occurred. It doesnot refer to any ill-will at all. In this context maliciously is a synonym for the legal meaning of recklessness. Your previous study of recklessness is relevant here.
*R v Cunningham 2 QB 396*R v Spratt  2 All ER 210 *R v G and R *  UKHL 50; 1 AC 1034 (a criminal damage case, but relevant here)
Thus subjective recklessness reigns here.
recklessness was abandoned
*Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.8
A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions byreason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but(b) Shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence,drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.
RACTICAL DIFFICULTIES CAUSED BY THE SUBJECTIVE TEST
any crimes here caused by
rimes of basic intent: ifD is not aware of the risk that he is causing, because of voluntary intoxication, the law presumes that he had the necessary recklessness on thebasis of a sober person.
In a way, in this area objectivism still reigns with regards to deciding the basisintent of a drunk person
xception to the basic presumption:
alicious causing of gbh.
S20 of 1861 Act is a crime of basic intent, while s18 (causing gbh with an intentto cause gbh) is a crime of specific intent; for these evidence of intoxication isadmissible to throw doubts on the defence
Where people lose their temper and get
In this situation, are they aware of the law? What is subjective?
R v Parker  1 WLR 600 (another criminal damage case, but still instructive)
Facts: D falls asleep on the train, wakes up to find hes overshot his station. A lot of problems trying toget a taxi and the railway personnel arent helpful. Finds public phone to ring up a taxi, phone doesntwork. In fury, smashes down the receiver and this shatters into a lot of pieces.
harged with criminal