Non fatal offences

An assault is an action b which the defendants intentionally or recklessly

causes the claimant to apprehend violence against the person. Doesnt
include touching, only putting fear eg threatening.
A defendant intentionally or recklessly puts violence against the victim
Assault is putting someone in fear of unlawful personal violence; battery is
actually inflicting the unlawful force.

Faulkner v Talbot

As long as there is no lawful excuse or consent, touching suffices for a

battery.
Logdon v Dpp
Opening a drawer to show someone a gun sufficed.
Words alone can suffice apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
Ireland v Burnstow [1998]
Made silent phone calls to women over 8 months and resulted in her
developing psychological harm. Convicted. They were willing to accept in
certain circumstances where silent phone calls would suffice. Until 1997
there was very little protection from stalkers. HL felt that the common law
needed to provide protection from people like Ireland and burnstow.
It might be noted that there is requirement for battery to be an assault
too.
Santa Bermudez[2004
Was a drug addict, stopped a policewoman who asked if he had any
needled. He said no, she checked his pockets and hurt herself on the
needle. This was constituted as a battery, because he just left the needle
in his pocket.

The mens rea for battery is Intentional recklessness, as to put someone in

fear of immediate unlawful violence.
Venna [1976]
Him and his friends were causing trouble in the street, police came and as
he refused to be arrested broke the police officers hands. He argued that
he did not intend the harm and it does not say anywhere that recklessness
only suffices for the mens rea.

Offences against the person act 1961

Section 47
See handout. This requires initially an assault or a battery. The only mens
rea required for this section 47 is the mens rea for assault or battery.
Occasions means causes.
Roberts (1971)
Tried to escape from the car due to fear. Held her actions were reasonable
and foreseeable.
Savage and Parmenter [1991]
This section is in part a constructive crime. Their is no mens rea required
for the actual bodily harm therefore can be classed as a constructive
crime.
What is actual bodily harm?
Miller- any hurt or injury which will interfere with the health of the victim. It
can include a temp loss of consciousness but not necessary. Notably it also
covers psychiatric injury. A distinction is drawn between psychiatric illness
and psychiatric harm, and in this case it needs to be an illness therefore
medical evidence is needed.
Section 20
The mens rea is to intend maliciously (intentionally or recklessly which is
used here in the subjective sense)
R v Cunnigham
Wanted to steal money from the gas heater and his force caused a gas
leak. The CA was asked to determine was malice meant. See handout.
Savage v Parmenter
HL looked at sec 27 and 20 and looked at whether they ought to be
constructive. Savage was in pub and saw woman who she didnt like, she
threw a pint over her. Glass broke n cut victim on wrist. Parmenter had
injured young child. He said his defence was that he didnt know young
children were vulnerable and weak. HL had to look at how sections should
be applied. Quote on handout.
Wound or inflict GBH
There has to be a wounding or GBH. For a wound the whole of the skin has
to be broken. A graze is not GBH
Moriarty and Brooks
GBH has to be more than graze

Smith (1961)
What constitutes GBH?
Ireland
Serious psychological illness can be GBH
Wilson
Dica
Infecting someone with HIV is GBH. Before this case, it wasnt GBH to
infect someone with a disease.
Section 18
Definition handout.
Mens rea is a bit complicated. Says maliciously but then says with intent.
Its because section 18 covers more than one type of offence. Covers
intentional affliction of GBH. If you recklessly inflict GBH, that is also
covered by section 18. So section 18 covers 2 different types of situations.
You have to intend the outcome. Where its charged with intent to resist
arrest it is constructive extent to which the result is not quite the same n
has element of constructive liability.
Malice and intent
Bryson
GBH
Alternative verdicts
Mandair
Jury is entitled to bring verdict on section 18 or 20.
Wilson
Where someone is charged with section 20, jury is entitled to bring section
20 or section. The judge if he wants to can bring verdict on either. They
dont have to be separably charged.
Consent and Defences
Where common assault and battery consent is valid. Battery is simply
touching someone. It would be odd if you couldnt consent to someone
touching you, e.g. in doctors.
Collins v Wilcock

In public you may bump in with others, but this doesnt necessarily mean
its a criminal offence. Robert Goff on handout. Consent is implied.
Capacity
Even when there is express consent there are times when it wont be
accepted. E.g. where the person lacks capacity. E.g. children cant consent
to certain things. Paul Roberts handout
Gillick v West Norfolk
G was a prolife campaigner and the mother of girls under 16. She objected
that doctors could give contraceptive advice to girls under 16 without
parents consent. She sought an order that it was unlawful. HL expressly
said that wasnt the case. They said it was in the best interests of the
children to receive that info. They said the childrens consent was fine as
long as they were capable of understanding basic info. They didnt try and
set a particular age on this as they accepted that children mature at
different ages. Therefore capacity depends on ability to understand. There
are some exceptions to this. E.g. there are ages of consent for voting and
smoking which are imposed by statute. But generally speaking if you
understand consequences you have capacity to consent.
Informal consent
There can be circumstances of informal consent of HIV transactions.
Konzami
It was determined that although if you dont tell someone you are HIV
positive you could be guilty of section 20 offence, if partner tells partner
they are HIV positive but they still have sex, then informed consent
suffices. So sometimes for consent to be operative there has to be some
information given.
Fraud
There can be times where failure to give info or mislead info
Dica
D was HIV positive n didnt tell partners. He recklessly infected partners.
People he had infected had consented to sex. But HIV transmission can be
GBH. Therefore as he didnt tell them, they didnt consent to actual bodily
harm of sex. Handout. If you separate off consent to sex, because he had
defrauded them to HIV status they hadnt consented to that, so it was GBH
R v Richardson
R was a dentist who had been suspended from practice. But, she still
opened her practice and carried on engaging in dentistry. A number of
patients complained as they said she was obviously intoxicated when

performing surgery. She was charged with assault against actual bodily
harm. She said they had consented. At first instance, the judge said that it
wouldnt amount to an defence. CA quashed conviction as said the
relevant test was to see if patients were mislead about the identity of
person or nature of force. She fulfilled the requirements of this test, as she
had said who she was and what she was going to do. It was only
defrauding as to the quality.
R v Tabbassum
T was a medical representative. He claimed that he was developing a
database on breast cancer. He persuaded a number of woman to let him
examine them. Indecent assault. He had led them to believe that he was
medically qualified but really he was a sales rep. He had deceived them as
to the quality of the act. Therefore they had consented to a different
quality of act. Clearly conflicting with Richardson. As Richardson was not
entitled to practice as licence had been revoked, and Tabbassum had
never been allowed to practice. But in Tabbassum they said the quality
sufficed. So there is a conflict of authority.
Invalid consent
The Law doesnt except the consent. Beyond assault and going into actual
bodily harm, consent is not a defence unless there is some social purpose
of activity being engaged in. The law in this area cannot be explained on
the basis of coherent principle. As soon as you get to actual bodily harm
there has to be a reason for consent to be operative. Autonomy principle
allows you to consent to most things.
David Ormerod quote.
Joel Feinberg quote
Sports and Social Purpose
In most sports it is accepted that there is implied consent
A-Gs Reference quote. People must be able to consent to surgery,
otherwise doctors would be liable for battery or murder. dangerous
exhibitions such as stunt driving. Sports have loads of injuries such as
fouls. In boxing there are loads of injuries.
Jobidon
They accepted that in stunts could consent to injury as for good of people
involved and for wider people too.
Lord Mustill in Brown

Boxing legality quote. There are a number of people who have died as a
result of boxing. A boxer causes death, intends GBH, yet consent is
considered to operate even at risk of death.
Horseplay
Horseplay means rough play such as boys playing about.
Jones
Boys were throwing victims up in air and catching him. He didnt catch
him, he broke his arm and ruptured his spleen. They said he had implied
consent.
Aitken
Involved a number of RAF pilots who had been drinking and had come
back to their quarters. They had recently got some new fire proof suits.
They decided to test the suits by setting fire to each other. One of them
was seriously burned. Court marshall appeal said it was horseplay. What
public interest is being served here?
Other permitted areas of consent
R v Brown
For those who religious traditions involved flagitation was acceptable, e.g.
tattoos.
Dica
HIV case.
No social purpose
If its above level of assault there must be some social purpose before law
allows consent
Lord Lane in CJ in A-Gs reference quote. Law is a bit paternalistic.
Unsporting activities: sado-masochism and the law
Brown
HL disapproved strongly of appellants. Police had raided a group of
sadomasochism and found videos. They couldnt be charged with gross
indecency as there is a time bar of one year. Police thought they must be
prosecuted so prosecuted them for section 20 and section of offences.
Were these really acts of violence? Threshold issue was whether this was
violence or just sex? Majority said this was just violence and it can be used
for offence against the person act. Lord quotes handout.
Wilson

Wilson and his wife decided it would be nice if she had his initials on her
buttocks, so Mr W did the tattoo himself with a hot knife. He was charged
even though she had consented. As R v Brown said consent is irrelevant.
But CA changed decision. Mrs W not only consented it was but she also
instigated it like in Brown, there was no aggressive intent like in Brown,
but in Wilson victim didnt enjoy it unlike Brown, but this doesnt make a
difference as it Brown they said it wasnt about sex but was about
violence. In Wilson, they looked at public policy. they werent as concerned
with domestic matrimony.
R v Emmett
Question of whether or not Brown was really about moralism and about
defendants being homosexuals. In Emmett it was heterosexuals doing the
same thing. They said Brown was restricted to homosexuals only. But court
disagreed and said the same Brown principle applied to heterosexuals.
Barnes - Why should you be able to consent to boxing but not sadomachocism? Lord barnes said it was due to public policy.
29.2.08 pm
Reform, Questions and Further Comment
1998 consultation paper on violence see handout the law commission
has suggested that we have one crime act that sets out all the crimes that
one could commit, therefore wouldnt have to have common law crimes
anymore which at the moment tend to be quite vague. There could also be
consistency in criminal law, however this would take a huge amount of
time as one would have to sit there and define every single crime, this
would also raise controversial issues eg. Mercy killings.
This is trying to rationalise the law.
See handout for content of the different clauses;
Cl 1 (1) this is very much an analogue of section 18 as it currently
stands.
Cl 4 (1) refers to assault and battery.
Cl 14 (1) different to Woollin. The language here is that it would occur in
the ordinary course of events
(2) defines recklessness- which is similar to Cunningham.
Cl 15 (1) defines injury to mean physical or psychological injury which we
have fro Ireland and burnstow
(2) notably physical injury does not included disease.

(4)...unless it is an intentional causing on harm. This could be seen as

unfortunate because as we can see from konazi, passing on HIV could
prove fatal, it would be a difficult to prove an intentional transfer HIV onto
another person, because the nature of the transmission is not virtually
certain. Which is why in konzani and dica they were charged with reckless
transfer of HIV because they saw the risk and took it rather than did it
intentionally.