QUESTION
The local football team “Small Town United” are playing their rival club “Large Village
Football Club” in the cup final of the year. The winner of the match will take home the
trophy. Everyone knows these two teams hate each other and that emotions run high when
they play; the fact that it is the cup final adds to the tense atmosphere. Five minutes before
the end of the match, the score is 3-2 to “Small Town United”. Hamza, the “Small Town
United” captain, who has scored three goals already, has the ball and is about to take
another shot. Tony, a defender for the other team, is livid that his team are losing. He is
determined to stop Hamza from scoring for the rest of the game, and so skids towards him
at speed. Tony’s foot collides directly with Hamza’s left ankle, causing Hamza to trip, land on
his face, and break his nose.
Carlos, a member of “Small Town United” is outraged. He shouts at Tony: “You did that on
purpose! You weren’t aiming for the ball but wanted to kick Hamza. I’m going to get you for
that”. Alarmed by how angry Carlos appears to be, Tony goes to stand with his own team,
away from Carlos. Nikita, a teammate of Carlos, taps Carlos on the back saying, “Leave it,
Carlos, he’s not worth it”. Carlos turns and walks away.
The referee, Oti, tries to calm the situation down. She declares that Tony’s “tackle” was a
foul and that a free kick will be awarded to “Small Town United”. This decision enrages the
players of “Large Village Football Club”. Johannes, a member of “Large Village Football Club”
is so angry by the decision that he picks up a metal pole from the side line and charges
towards Carlos. Johannes swings the pole behind him so that he can hit Carlos with force;
however, in so doing, Johannes accidentally drops the pole, which hits Oti on the head. Oti is
knocked unconscious and sustains a brain injury, requiring surgery to release the swelling on
her brain. The surgery is successful, and she makes a full recovery.
Discuss any criminal liability that may arise as well as the defence of consent.
ANSWER
This case concerns several non-fatal offences against the person. Each of the defendants will be
advised as to any potential criminal liability under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA)
and Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA), considering the defence of consent. Each victim is clearly a
person so the circumstance element of actus reus (AR) will not be examined.
Tony’s liability for the breaking of Hamza’s nose
, Tony may be liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) contrary to s47 OAPA. As ABH is
a ‘constructive’ offence, the AR for battery must be fully satisfied before consideration of an extra
consequence element that this causes the victim (V) to suffer ABH.
To establish AR, the conduct element of battery requires that D intentionally applied unlawful
physical force and contact onto V (Collins v Wilcock [1984]). The action of Tony skidding towards
Hamza at speed and colliding directly with Hamza’s left ankle, causing Hamza to trip, land on his
face, and break his nose, appears to satisfy this element. Secondly, D must “occasion” the battery
which simply means to “cause” and requires factual and legal causation to be proven (Roberts
[1971]). Here, but for Tony’s skid, Hamza’s nose would not have been broken (White [1910]). In
proving that Tony’s conduct was the legal cause of harm, it was substantive and blameworthy, as
Tony was the sole contributor (Warburton [2006]) and his blameworthiness was central to causation
(Dalloway [1847]), and it was operative because there was no break in the chain of causation.
Therefore, the AR for assault is satisfied.
In determining whether Hamza’s injury constitutes ABH, it must be so serious as to “interfere with
the health or comfort” of V (Miller [1954]) and according to the CPS Charging Standards, if the injury
“required medical treatment, because they could not be treated by the victim alone”, this element is
satisfied. As Hamza obtained a broken bone, subsequently suffering from pain, bleeding, swelling,
bruising and difficulty breathing, ultimately requiring medical treatment, the injury appears to meet
this ‘serious’ standard.
Savage, Parmenter [1992] confirmed there are no additional mens rea (MR) requirements for ABH
outside battery. The MR for battery requires intention or recklessness in occasioning the application
of unlawful force onto V. From the facts, Tony satisfies direct intention because the outcome of the
battery was his main aim, he was determined to stop Hamza from playing the rest of the game as his
The local football team “Small Town United” are playing their rival club “Large Village
Football Club” in the cup final of the year. The winner of the match will take home the
trophy. Everyone knows these two teams hate each other and that emotions run high when
they play; the fact that it is the cup final adds to the tense atmosphere. Five minutes before
the end of the match, the score is 3-2 to “Small Town United”. Hamza, the “Small Town
United” captain, who has scored three goals already, has the ball and is about to take
another shot. Tony, a defender for the other team, is livid that his team are losing. He is
determined to stop Hamza from scoring for the rest of the game, and so skids towards him
at speed. Tony’s foot collides directly with Hamza’s left ankle, causing Hamza to trip, land on
his face, and break his nose.
Carlos, a member of “Small Town United” is outraged. He shouts at Tony: “You did that on
purpose! You weren’t aiming for the ball but wanted to kick Hamza. I’m going to get you for
that”. Alarmed by how angry Carlos appears to be, Tony goes to stand with his own team,
away from Carlos. Nikita, a teammate of Carlos, taps Carlos on the back saying, “Leave it,
Carlos, he’s not worth it”. Carlos turns and walks away.
The referee, Oti, tries to calm the situation down. She declares that Tony’s “tackle” was a
foul and that a free kick will be awarded to “Small Town United”. This decision enrages the
players of “Large Village Football Club”. Johannes, a member of “Large Village Football Club”
is so angry by the decision that he picks up a metal pole from the side line and charges
towards Carlos. Johannes swings the pole behind him so that he can hit Carlos with force;
however, in so doing, Johannes accidentally drops the pole, which hits Oti on the head. Oti is
knocked unconscious and sustains a brain injury, requiring surgery to release the swelling on
her brain. The surgery is successful, and she makes a full recovery.
Discuss any criminal liability that may arise as well as the defence of consent.
ANSWER
This case concerns several non-fatal offences against the person. Each of the defendants will be
advised as to any potential criminal liability under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA)
and Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA), considering the defence of consent. Each victim is clearly a
person so the circumstance element of actus reus (AR) will not be examined.
Tony’s liability for the breaking of Hamza’s nose
, Tony may be liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) contrary to s47 OAPA. As ABH is
a ‘constructive’ offence, the AR for battery must be fully satisfied before consideration of an extra
consequence element that this causes the victim (V) to suffer ABH.
To establish AR, the conduct element of battery requires that D intentionally applied unlawful
physical force and contact onto V (Collins v Wilcock [1984]). The action of Tony skidding towards
Hamza at speed and colliding directly with Hamza’s left ankle, causing Hamza to trip, land on his
face, and break his nose, appears to satisfy this element. Secondly, D must “occasion” the battery
which simply means to “cause” and requires factual and legal causation to be proven (Roberts
[1971]). Here, but for Tony’s skid, Hamza’s nose would not have been broken (White [1910]). In
proving that Tony’s conduct was the legal cause of harm, it was substantive and blameworthy, as
Tony was the sole contributor (Warburton [2006]) and his blameworthiness was central to causation
(Dalloway [1847]), and it was operative because there was no break in the chain of causation.
Therefore, the AR for assault is satisfied.
In determining whether Hamza’s injury constitutes ABH, it must be so serious as to “interfere with
the health or comfort” of V (Miller [1954]) and according to the CPS Charging Standards, if the injury
“required medical treatment, because they could not be treated by the victim alone”, this element is
satisfied. As Hamza obtained a broken bone, subsequently suffering from pain, bleeding, swelling,
bruising and difficulty breathing, ultimately requiring medical treatment, the injury appears to meet
this ‘serious’ standard.
Savage, Parmenter [1992] confirmed there are no additional mens rea (MR) requirements for ABH
outside battery. The MR for battery requires intention or recklessness in occasioning the application
of unlawful force onto V. From the facts, Tony satisfies direct intention because the outcome of the
battery was his main aim, he was determined to stop Hamza from playing the rest of the game as his
