Criminal Law - Assaults, Consent, Reasonable Use of Force, Sexual Offences,
Intoxication
Assault:
- Simple Assault (a.k.a. common assault charged under s.39 Criminal Justice Act
1988)
- Causing the apprehension of immediate and unlawful force to another
person
- AR:
- Causing apprehension of (DOESN’T HAVE to be fear, just
anticipation)
- Includes silence (silent calls) - Ireland
- Immediate
- Unlawful
- I.e. without any lawful justification (no defence - statutory or
non-statutory, and other elements of AR and MR evident)
- As per R v Horwood [2012] EWCA Crim 253
- Issue:
- Defined that GBH inflicted in self-
defence would be lawful
- Force to a person (the victim)
- MR:
- Intention to cause apprehension of immediate unlawful force
- ‘Intention’ = aim/desire/purpose (Moloney)
- OR Recklessly causing apprehension of immediate unlawful force
- Physical Assault (common law / battery charged under s.39 CJA 1988)
- Immediate and unlawful infliction of force to a person (Fagan)
- AR:
- Infliction of force
- Can be indirectly applied (e.g DPP v K - boy placed acid in a
hair dryer which was later used by another child causing
injuries)
- Immediate
- And unlawful
- To a person (a victim)
- N.B. unlike for simple assault, the victim does not have to apprehend the
force inflicted against them
- MR:
, - Intention or recklessness as to the infliction of immediate unlawful
personal force
- S.47 Offences against the Person Act 1861 - Assault occasioning Actual
Bodily Harm (ABH)
- AR:
Simple or physical assault which leads to ABH
- Simple OR physical assault (causing apprehension of immediate
and unlawful force to a person OR immediate and unlawful infliction
of force to a person)
- Which causes
- Actual bodily harm
- Defined in R v Miller [1954] 2 QB 282 as hurt/injury
calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim
that is more than merely transient or trifling
- Doesn’t have to be serious (e.g. a scratch or bruise
counts)
- A rise in mental health injuries in cases recently
- Law reflecting changing societal views as to
what constitutes an injury/actual bodily harm
- NOT limited to skin, flesh + bone injuries
- E.g. cutting of ponytail amounted to ABH (e.g.
haircutting amounts to harm) in DPP v Smith [2006]
EWHC 94 on appeal in HC
- Includes psychiatric injuries
- R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534, approved R v Chan-
Fook - ABH includes psychiatric injury that must be a
clinical condition (e.g. depression), and strong
emotions (e.g. Panic, rage) DO NOT qualify alone
- Facts:
- D made a series of silent telephone calls
over three months to three different
women.
- Convicted under s.47 Offences Against
the Person Act 1861.
- He appealed contending that silence
cannot amount to an assault and that
psychiatric injury is not bodily harm.
- Held:
, - Appeal dismissed
- MR:
- Intention OR recklessness as to the simple/physical assault only
(strict liability as to the ABH)
- Savage / Parmenter [1991] 4 All ER 698
- S.20 OAPA - Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm
- AR:
- Wound
- Defined in Moriarty v Brookes (1834) 6 C & P 684 as
requiring both layers of the skin to be broken.
- Theoretically, a scratch (anything that draws blood)
counts
- N.B. means that internal bleeding and bruising DOES
NOT count as a wound, regardless of severity.
- Severe internal bleeding can amount to GBH though
- OR inflict GBH
- Means ‘really serious harm’
- DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
- Objectively assessed - what amounts to ‘really serious harm’
- E.g. R v Brown and Stratton [1997] EWCA Crim 2255
- Issue: Lord Justice Potter on appeal stated
‘the nature of the enquiry is to be judged
objectively by a jury...not subjectively from the
standpoint of the victim.’
- Includes HIV/STDs - Dica
- Can include severe psychiatric problems and DOES NOT
have to involve simple/physical assault AR components
(immediate and unlawful infliction of force to the body)
- E.g. R v Burstow [1997] 4 All ER 225
- Facts:
- D made silent phone calls resulting in
the victim suffering severe psychiatric
illness
- Issues:
- 1. whether psychiatric injury could
amount to bodily harm under the OAPA
1861
- 2. whether a person could be liable
under s.20 where there was no direct or
Intoxication
Assault:
- Simple Assault (a.k.a. common assault charged under s.39 Criminal Justice Act
1988)
- Causing the apprehension of immediate and unlawful force to another
person
- AR:
- Causing apprehension of (DOESN’T HAVE to be fear, just
anticipation)
- Includes silence (silent calls) - Ireland
- Immediate
- Unlawful
- I.e. without any lawful justification (no defence - statutory or
non-statutory, and other elements of AR and MR evident)
- As per R v Horwood [2012] EWCA Crim 253
- Issue:
- Defined that GBH inflicted in self-
defence would be lawful
- Force to a person (the victim)
- MR:
- Intention to cause apprehension of immediate unlawful force
- ‘Intention’ = aim/desire/purpose (Moloney)
- OR Recklessly causing apprehension of immediate unlawful force
- Physical Assault (common law / battery charged under s.39 CJA 1988)
- Immediate and unlawful infliction of force to a person (Fagan)
- AR:
- Infliction of force
- Can be indirectly applied (e.g DPP v K - boy placed acid in a
hair dryer which was later used by another child causing
injuries)
- Immediate
- And unlawful
- To a person (a victim)
- N.B. unlike for simple assault, the victim does not have to apprehend the
force inflicted against them
- MR:
, - Intention or recklessness as to the infliction of immediate unlawful
personal force
- S.47 Offences against the Person Act 1861 - Assault occasioning Actual
Bodily Harm (ABH)
- AR:
Simple or physical assault which leads to ABH
- Simple OR physical assault (causing apprehension of immediate
and unlawful force to a person OR immediate and unlawful infliction
of force to a person)
- Which causes
- Actual bodily harm
- Defined in R v Miller [1954] 2 QB 282 as hurt/injury
calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim
that is more than merely transient or trifling
- Doesn’t have to be serious (e.g. a scratch or bruise
counts)
- A rise in mental health injuries in cases recently
- Law reflecting changing societal views as to
what constitutes an injury/actual bodily harm
- NOT limited to skin, flesh + bone injuries
- E.g. cutting of ponytail amounted to ABH (e.g.
haircutting amounts to harm) in DPP v Smith [2006]
EWHC 94 on appeal in HC
- Includes psychiatric injuries
- R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534, approved R v Chan-
Fook - ABH includes psychiatric injury that must be a
clinical condition (e.g. depression), and strong
emotions (e.g. Panic, rage) DO NOT qualify alone
- Facts:
- D made a series of silent telephone calls
over three months to three different
women.
- Convicted under s.47 Offences Against
the Person Act 1861.
- He appealed contending that silence
cannot amount to an assault and that
psychiatric injury is not bodily harm.
- Held:
, - Appeal dismissed
- MR:
- Intention OR recklessness as to the simple/physical assault only
(strict liability as to the ABH)
- Savage / Parmenter [1991] 4 All ER 698
- S.20 OAPA - Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm
- AR:
- Wound
- Defined in Moriarty v Brookes (1834) 6 C & P 684 as
requiring both layers of the skin to be broken.
- Theoretically, a scratch (anything that draws blood)
counts
- N.B. means that internal bleeding and bruising DOES
NOT count as a wound, regardless of severity.
- Severe internal bleeding can amount to GBH though
- OR inflict GBH
- Means ‘really serious harm’
- DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
- Objectively assessed - what amounts to ‘really serious harm’
- E.g. R v Brown and Stratton [1997] EWCA Crim 2255
- Issue: Lord Justice Potter on appeal stated
‘the nature of the enquiry is to be judged
objectively by a jury...not subjectively from the
standpoint of the victim.’
- Includes HIV/STDs - Dica
- Can include severe psychiatric problems and DOES NOT
have to involve simple/physical assault AR components
(immediate and unlawful infliction of force to the body)
- E.g. R v Burstow [1997] 4 All ER 225
- Facts:
- D made silent phone calls resulting in
the victim suffering severe psychiatric
illness
- Issues:
- 1. whether psychiatric injury could
amount to bodily harm under the OAPA
1861
- 2. whether a person could be liable
under s.20 where there was no direct or
