Possible questions
1. What is the most serious assault offence that Kiran could
possibly have committed when she pushes Marnie?
The most serious offence Kiran could have committed is likely s.47 of the
OAPA WHICH IS assault occasioning actual bodily harm, as Marnie’s
injuries do not meet the threshold for what constitutes a wound under
s.18 or s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act.
2. Can you define the actus reus of a s.18 assault; and explain
whether this is satisfied on the evidence provided in relation
to the assault on Marnie?
The AR of a s18 assault can be satisfied in 2 ways, by wounding or causing
grievous bodily harm. The medical reports indicate that Marnie suffered
injuries such as a black eye, bruising on the face and temporary loss of
consciousness. Following, JJC (A Minor) v Eisenhower) bruising is not
classified as wounds, and following DPP v Smith GBH means really serious
harm. And such injuries that Marnie has suffered is unlikely to fall within
the classification required for a s18 offence. More medical information
may be required however, it is likely that the AR of the s18 offence is not
satisfied.
3. What is the mens rea of a s.18 assault and is the
prosecution likely to be able to prove this?
The MR is an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. Throughout the
police interview Kiran states that she never ment to hurt Marnie.
Therefore, one push will make it very difficult to prove this level of intent.
It is therefore likely that the prosecution will not be able to prove the MR
of a s18 assault.
4. If the prosecution cannot establish an offence under s.18 of
the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, what is the next
assault charge they will consider and why?
Since a s.18 offence is unlikely, the prosecution may consider s.20 for
wounding or inflicting GBH under the Offences Against the Person Act
1861. However, per JJC (A minor), bruising is not a wound, so the AR for
s.20 fails. The prosecution will likely pursue s.47 for assault occasioning
actual bodily harm, which covers injuries like bruising and temporary loss
of consciousness, both of which Marnie suffered.
, 5. Can you analyse whether Kiran has committed an assault
occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 OAPA 1861?
The AR of s.47 includes three elements: assault, which occasions, actual
bodily harm.
Kiran committed assault by pushing Marnie from behind, inflicting
unlawful force.
Factual causation is met, as "but for" Kiran’s push, Marnie would not
have hit her head, suffering a black eye, bruising, and
unconsciousness (R v White).
Kiran’s push was a substantial cause of Marnie’s injury and was
more than negligible (R v L).
Kiran’s conduct was directly linked to Marnie’s injury, with no intervening
acts breaking causation. The injury meets the threshold of "more than
transient or trifling" harm (R v Miller), thus satisfying the AR of s.47.
The MR for s.47 is intention or recklessness regarding assault (R v Savage;
R v Parmenter).
Direct intention is not relevant, as she stated in the interview that
she did not aim to harm Marnie (R v Moloney).
Indirect intention also does not apply, as Kiran didn’t foresee
Marnie’s head injury as virtually certain.
We must now assess recklessness (Cunningham)
- This is a hybrid test;
- Arguably the risk was unjustified as after the argument they had the
reasonable person would not have forcefully pushed Marnie.
- the subjective element asks whether the defendant foresaw a risk of
the result. Arguably, Kiran foresaw an element of risk, as she
acknowledged the filing cabinet was there and pushing Marnie
would result in some degree of harm. It was held in Brady that
foresight of any risk is sufficient to satisfy this element.
- The objective element asks did the defendant unreasonably chose
to run that risk. Indeed, Kiran chose to take this risk, even though it
was an unreasonable one to take. Therefore, the MR of s.47 is likely
satisfied.
Depending on whether there are any applicable defences it is likely that
the prosecution will find that Kiran has committed a s47 offence.
6. Kiran and Janice fail to act to help Marnie. How does the law
of omissions apply to this scenario?
In England and Wales, there is generally no legal duty to assist someone
in trouble.
1. What is the most serious assault offence that Kiran could
possibly have committed when she pushes Marnie?
The most serious offence Kiran could have committed is likely s.47 of the
OAPA WHICH IS assault occasioning actual bodily harm, as Marnie’s
injuries do not meet the threshold for what constitutes a wound under
s.18 or s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act.
2. Can you define the actus reus of a s.18 assault; and explain
whether this is satisfied on the evidence provided in relation
to the assault on Marnie?
The AR of a s18 assault can be satisfied in 2 ways, by wounding or causing
grievous bodily harm. The medical reports indicate that Marnie suffered
injuries such as a black eye, bruising on the face and temporary loss of
consciousness. Following, JJC (A Minor) v Eisenhower) bruising is not
classified as wounds, and following DPP v Smith GBH means really serious
harm. And such injuries that Marnie has suffered is unlikely to fall within
the classification required for a s18 offence. More medical information
may be required however, it is likely that the AR of the s18 offence is not
satisfied.
3. What is the mens rea of a s.18 assault and is the
prosecution likely to be able to prove this?
The MR is an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. Throughout the
police interview Kiran states that she never ment to hurt Marnie.
Therefore, one push will make it very difficult to prove this level of intent.
It is therefore likely that the prosecution will not be able to prove the MR
of a s18 assault.
4. If the prosecution cannot establish an offence under s.18 of
the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, what is the next
assault charge they will consider and why?
Since a s.18 offence is unlikely, the prosecution may consider s.20 for
wounding or inflicting GBH under the Offences Against the Person Act
1861. However, per JJC (A minor), bruising is not a wound, so the AR for
s.20 fails. The prosecution will likely pursue s.47 for assault occasioning
actual bodily harm, which covers injuries like bruising and temporary loss
of consciousness, both of which Marnie suffered.
, 5. Can you analyse whether Kiran has committed an assault
occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 OAPA 1861?
The AR of s.47 includes three elements: assault, which occasions, actual
bodily harm.
Kiran committed assault by pushing Marnie from behind, inflicting
unlawful force.
Factual causation is met, as "but for" Kiran’s push, Marnie would not
have hit her head, suffering a black eye, bruising, and
unconsciousness (R v White).
Kiran’s push was a substantial cause of Marnie’s injury and was
more than negligible (R v L).
Kiran’s conduct was directly linked to Marnie’s injury, with no intervening
acts breaking causation. The injury meets the threshold of "more than
transient or trifling" harm (R v Miller), thus satisfying the AR of s.47.
The MR for s.47 is intention or recklessness regarding assault (R v Savage;
R v Parmenter).
Direct intention is not relevant, as she stated in the interview that
she did not aim to harm Marnie (R v Moloney).
Indirect intention also does not apply, as Kiran didn’t foresee
Marnie’s head injury as virtually certain.
We must now assess recklessness (Cunningham)
- This is a hybrid test;
- Arguably the risk was unjustified as after the argument they had the
reasonable person would not have forcefully pushed Marnie.
- the subjective element asks whether the defendant foresaw a risk of
the result. Arguably, Kiran foresaw an element of risk, as she
acknowledged the filing cabinet was there and pushing Marnie
would result in some degree of harm. It was held in Brady that
foresight of any risk is sufficient to satisfy this element.
- The objective element asks did the defendant unreasonably chose
to run that risk. Indeed, Kiran chose to take this risk, even though it
was an unreasonable one to take. Therefore, the MR of s.47 is likely
satisfied.
Depending on whether there are any applicable defences it is likely that
the prosecution will find that Kiran has committed a s47 offence.
6. Kiran and Janice fail to act to help Marnie. How does the law
of omissions apply to this scenario?
In England and Wales, there is generally no legal duty to assist someone
in trouble.
