LZ019:

Law for University Study

Workshop: Criminal Law
Case Test 1 of 2
Hannah Phillips
H.Phillips-277@kent.ac.uk
 Assault
s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
 Assault: an act

Question 1: Question 2: Question 3:

An assault cannot The actus reus of It is possible for
be committed by assault requires silence to satisfy
omission, but it some act or the actus reus of
is possible to words. assault.
satisfy the actus
reus requirement
through a
continuing act
 Assault: apprehension
immediate unlawful force

Question 4: Question 5: Question 6:

Ds words or The threat to be Threats can
acts must cause violent cannot sometimes be
V to apprehend be in the distant sufficient, but
the infliction of future, although the threat must
force (including not knowing not be
psychological what D may do conditional.
injury). may suffice.
 Battery
s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
 Battery: actual infliction
unlawful force

Question 7: Question 8: Question 9:

The actus reus A battery can The actus reus
of battery be committed can be
requires the without the committed by
actual victim spitting or
infliction of suffering any throwing.
unlawful force. kind of injury.
 Battery: created a danger
indirect unlawful force

Question 10: Question 11: Question 12:

A battery can be A battery can be The mens rea
committed where
a D has created a committed for assault and
danger, exposing indirectly where battery is direct
another to a a D creates a intent or
reasonably situation where recklessness.
foreseeable risk of force is applied
injury which to the V.
materializes.
Assault/Battery: consent

Question 13: Question 14: Question 15:

If a person It is possible to The consent
consents to the imply consent, must be true
touching there especially in (i.e. it must
is no battery as relation to not be
the force is not everyday procured
unlawful. jostling. through
deceit).
Actual Bodily Harm
s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
 s47: actual bodily harm

Question Question Question Question

16: 17: 18: 19:
Any hurt or The harm Includes Cutting hair
injury sustained recognised (which is a
calculated need not be medical tissue) is
to interfere permanent, conditions. sufficient.
with the but it
health or should not
comfort of be trivial.
the V.
s47: occasioned mens rea

Question 20: Question 21:

Occasioned means Mens rea for the
caused. assault or battery is
sufficient, the D
need not foresee
actual bodily harm.
 s47: public interest

Question 22: Question 23:

It is not generally There are exceptions to
possible to consent the general rules on
consent, provided that
to ABH as it is not in the harm is not so
the public interest to serious as make it a
allow such matter of public
behaviour. interest.
Malicious Wounding
s20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
 s20: wound

Question 24: Question 25:

A wound is a break The breaking of an
in the continuity of inner membrane
the whole of the which is analogous
skin, bruising is not to skin may
sufficient. constitute a wound.
s20: grievous bodily harm

Question 26: Question 27: Question 28:

Grievous bodily Must consider Really serious
harm is really the particular harm includes
serious harm and characteristics of psychological
this is assessed the V when harm.
objectively in determining
terms of the whether the
totality of the injuries are
harm. really serious.
 s20: mens rea

Question 29:
D must foresee that V might suffer some
harm. It is not however necessary to show
that the D intended or foresaw that V
would suffer grievous bodily harm.
Wounding with Intent
s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
 s18: mens rea

Question Question Question Question

30: 31: 32: 33:
Foresight of Harm must Direct Engaging in
consequences have been a intent is sexual
is not virtual required. activity with
intention, it certainty an
is only and D must awareness of
evidence of the risk of
intention.
realise this.
infection is
sufficient.
Rules of Causation
Causation: actions of the V

Question 34: Question 35:

Vs response to Ds If Vs actions are
conduct must not reasonable there
be unreasonable. will be no break
in the chain of
causation.
 Causation: tests

Question 36: Question 37: Question 38:

The but for The operating The
test if D had cause test substantial
not acted, or Ds act must contributor
failed to act,
would V have
still be an test D has
died anyway? operating substantially
cause of the contributed to
Vs death. the death of V.
 Causation: novus actus
interveniens

Question 39: Question 40: Question 41:

Refusing medical While a V may do In order to break
treatment on something to the chain of
impair their causation the
religious grounds recovery, this will intervening act
will not cause a not necessary cause must overtake the
break in the chain a break in the actions of the D in
of causation. D chain of causation. terms of
must take their contribution to Vs
victim as they death.
find them!
Fatal Offences
Murder: mens rea

Question 42:
The mens rea for murder comprises
of an intention to kill or an intention
to cause grievous bodily harm.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter:
actus reus

Question 43:
D owed V a duty of care;
This duty was breached;
The breach caused Vs death;
So bad as to be criminal.
 Unlawful Act Manslaughter:
actus reus

Question 44: Question 45: Question 46:

The unlawful act All elements of Defences such as
must be a crime, the crime must consent may
not a tort (i.e. a be satisfied. negate
civil wrong). unlawfulness,
however
intoxication is
not usually
sufficient.
 Unlawful Act Manslaughter:
dangerous

Question 47: Question 48: Question 49:

The It is unlikely that Risk of fright is
dangerousness of reasonably sufficient when
an unlawful act is foreseeable physical injury is
determined fright or a reasonable
objectively. There emotional consequence of
must be risk of distress alone the
some harm, but will be fright/distress.
this risk need not sufficient.
be serious.
General Defences
General Defences: duress

Question 50:
The threat must be of
death or serious
personal injury
(threats to personal
property are not
enough).
General Defences: necessity

Question 52:
Question 51:
The act is needed to avoid
Necessity cannot be inevitable and irreparable evil;
used as a defence to No more should be done than is
reasonably necessary to avoid the
murder (but it may act evil;
as a defence to The evil inflicted must not be
manslaughter). disproportionate to the evil
avoided.
General Defences: mistake

Question 53:
A mistake of fact prevents the
prosecution from establishing that
D possessed the relevant mens
rea, but this mistake must be
honestly made.
 General Defences: self
defence necessity of force

Question 54: Question 55: Question 56:

It must be
necessary to use D may make a D may
some force, this is pre-emptive prepare for
assessed strike. an attack,
subjectively there is no
according to Ds
genuine belief duty to
(which may/may retreat.
not be mistaken).
General Defences: self defence
reasonableness of force

Question 57: Question 58: Question 59:

The amount of Ds psychological Force must not
force must be characteristics be
reasonable, this is are not relevant disproportionate
determined in determining or excessive.
objectively but the
reference is made reasonableness
to Ds genuine of the force.
perception of
events.
 General Defences: consent

Question 60: Question 61: Question 62:

There is implied For ABH, GBH Consent may be
consent available and wounding a defence to
to all batteries consent is only manslaughter,
(this can however available when but it will never
be rebutted).
there is good be a defence to
reason (i.e. the murder.
exceptions).
Answers
 Answers
1. Fagan v
Metropolitan
4. Burstow
Police
(1997)
Commissioner
(1986)

5. Smith v
Superintendent
2. Lodgon v DPP
of Woking
(1976)
Police Station
(1983)

3. Ireland 6. Tuberville v
(1998) Savage (1669)
 Answers

10. DPP v
7. Collins v Santa-
Wilcock (1984) Bermudez
(2004)

8. Thomas 11. DPP v K

(1985) (1990)

12. R v Venna
9. Smith (1866)
(1975)
 Answers

13. Slingsby 16. Donovan

(1995) (1934)

14. Wilson v 17. Chan-Fook

Pringle (1986) (1994)

15. Tabassum 18. Burstow

(2000) (1998)
 Answers

19. DPP v Smith 22. Brown

(Michal) (2008) (1993)

20. Roberts 23. Wilson

(1972) (1996)

24. C v
21. Savage
Eisenhower
(1991)
(1984)
 Answers

25. R v 28. Burstow

Waltham (1849) (1998)

26. Brown & 29. Cunningham

Stratton (1998) (1957)

27. Bollom 30. Moloney

(2003) (1985)
 Answers

31. Nedrick 34. Williams &

(1986) Davis (1992)

32.Woolin 35. Mackie

(1998) (1973)

33. Konzani 36. White

(2005) (1908)
 Answers

37. Smith
40. Dear (1996)
(1959)

38. Pagett 41. Jordan

(1983) (1956)

39. Blaue 42. Vickers

(1975) (1957)
 Answers

43. Adomako 46. Lipman

(1994) (1969)

44. Franklin 47. Church

(1883) (1965)

45. Lewis 48. Dowson

(2010) (1985)
 Answers

49. Watson
52. Re A (2000)
(1989)

50. Hudson & 53. DPP v

Taylor (1971) Morgan (1976)

51. Dudley v 54. Williams

Stephens (1884) (1987)
 Answers

55. Beckford 58. Martin

(1988) (2001)

59. Clegg
56. Bird (1985)
(1995)

57. Palmer 60. Collins v

(1971) Wilcock (1984)
Answers

61. A-G
Reference No 6
(1980)

62. Pretty
(2002)