Non Fatal Offences Against the Person
Study Pack
Criminal Law LLB - First Class Summary Pack
Based on UK Common Law & OAPA 1861
Topics Covered:
● Introduction to Non-Fatal Offences
● The Ladder of Harm (GBH, ABH, Battery, Assault)
● Assault: Definition, Indirect Harm, Mens Rea
● Differences Between Assault and Battery
● Consent & Belief in Consent (Everyday Contact to Sports & Horseplay)
● OAPA 1861
○ Section 47 - Assault Occasioning ABH
○ Section 20- Inflicting GBH
○ Section 18 - GBH with Intent
● Case Law Summaries (e.g. Ireland, Savage, Dica, Brown)
● Defences: Lawful Chastisement, Consent, Mistaken Belief
● Policy Considerations and Law Commission Commentary
,Introduction
Grouped within the non fatal offences against the person, a variety of offences have been
designed to criminalise behaviour that ranges from the infliction of serious injuries, through to
the potential targeting of any non consensual contact.
These offences can be separated into two categories, result focused and conduct focused.
The offences in the result- focused categories are defined largely by reference to the degree of
harm suffered by V. these offences can be presented as an imperfect ladder, with the most
serious at the top and least at the bottom
a. Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), or causing GBH with intent
b. Maliciously wounding of inflicting GBH
c. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH)
d. Assault and Battery
The second category of non fatal offences is conduct focused. Although offences in this
category are still concerned with D causing harm to V, they are equally concerned with the
manner in which that harm is inflicted.
This can be illustrated, for example with harassment and poisoning offences. In each case, the
behaviour in question could have been criminalised by use of offences within the first category
or new ones in the same form, focussing on the degree of harm suffered by V.
Only a natural person can be a victim of an offence against the person.
The law commission published a report in 2015 discussing the current law on the offences
against the person and making recommendations for fundamental reform.
Assault and battery
Many of the offences in this category are defined in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
(OAPA). However, the offences of assault and battery are not defined in statute.
The power to charge assault and battery derives from s39 of the criminal justice act 1988, but
they are defined at common law. This has given rise to a technical dispute as to whether these
offences should be referred to as statutory or common law offences.
1
, Assault
An assault involves any conduct by D that intentionally or recklessly causes V to apprehend
imminent unlawful personal violence.
It refers to the threat of physical harm. This can include actions such as making threatening
gestures or movements towards someone, or verbally threatening them with physical violence.
The key element of assault is that the victim must feel they are in imminent danger of physical
harm
A battery in contrast is any conduct by which D intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful
personal violence upon V.
This is where actual physical contact or harm is being caused. This can include hitting, punching
or pushing.
Actus reus of assault
The legal definition of assault does not require D to make any physical contact with V.
The actus reus is satisfied as soon as D causes V to apprehend or believe that V is about to
suffer personal violence.
The actus reus of assault is therefore less concerned with the conduct of D, and rather more
concerned with the effect of that conduct on V. The test is not whether D’s conduct was likely to
cause another to apprehend unlawful violence, but whether it had this effect in fact.
If d motions to strike V, but V does not so apprehend, perhaps because she is asleep or she
knows D is bluffing, the actus reus will not be satisfied.
Unlawful personal violence
Includes any non consensual contact with V. The actus reus of assault will therefore be satisfied
where V is caused to apprehend even low level violence. V need not believe that the violence
would be serious or cause injury (Ireland 1998)
How imminent must V believe the violence will be?
V must be caused to apprehend immediate or imminent unlawful personal violence. Threats of
violence at some non imminent point in the future (‘i will beat you up next month’), however
serious, does not constitute assault.
The distinction between imminent violence, which does satisfy the actus reus and non imminent
violence, which does not, is therefore crucial. Courts have applied a part subjective and part
objective approach.
Subjective: we ask what facts V is caused to believe; what V believes the nature of the threat is
2
Study Pack
Criminal Law LLB - First Class Summary Pack
Based on UK Common Law & OAPA 1861
Topics Covered:
● Introduction to Non-Fatal Offences
● The Ladder of Harm (GBH, ABH, Battery, Assault)
● Assault: Definition, Indirect Harm, Mens Rea
● Differences Between Assault and Battery
● Consent & Belief in Consent (Everyday Contact to Sports & Horseplay)
● OAPA 1861
○ Section 47 - Assault Occasioning ABH
○ Section 20- Inflicting GBH
○ Section 18 - GBH with Intent
● Case Law Summaries (e.g. Ireland, Savage, Dica, Brown)
● Defences: Lawful Chastisement, Consent, Mistaken Belief
● Policy Considerations and Law Commission Commentary
,Introduction
Grouped within the non fatal offences against the person, a variety of offences have been
designed to criminalise behaviour that ranges from the infliction of serious injuries, through to
the potential targeting of any non consensual contact.
These offences can be separated into two categories, result focused and conduct focused.
The offences in the result- focused categories are defined largely by reference to the degree of
harm suffered by V. these offences can be presented as an imperfect ladder, with the most
serious at the top and least at the bottom
a. Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), or causing GBH with intent
b. Maliciously wounding of inflicting GBH
c. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH)
d. Assault and Battery
The second category of non fatal offences is conduct focused. Although offences in this
category are still concerned with D causing harm to V, they are equally concerned with the
manner in which that harm is inflicted.
This can be illustrated, for example with harassment and poisoning offences. In each case, the
behaviour in question could have been criminalised by use of offences within the first category
or new ones in the same form, focussing on the degree of harm suffered by V.
Only a natural person can be a victim of an offence against the person.
The law commission published a report in 2015 discussing the current law on the offences
against the person and making recommendations for fundamental reform.
Assault and battery
Many of the offences in this category are defined in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
(OAPA). However, the offences of assault and battery are not defined in statute.
The power to charge assault and battery derives from s39 of the criminal justice act 1988, but
they are defined at common law. This has given rise to a technical dispute as to whether these
offences should be referred to as statutory or common law offences.
1
, Assault
An assault involves any conduct by D that intentionally or recklessly causes V to apprehend
imminent unlawful personal violence.
It refers to the threat of physical harm. This can include actions such as making threatening
gestures or movements towards someone, or verbally threatening them with physical violence.
The key element of assault is that the victim must feel they are in imminent danger of physical
harm
A battery in contrast is any conduct by which D intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful
personal violence upon V.
This is where actual physical contact or harm is being caused. This can include hitting, punching
or pushing.
Actus reus of assault
The legal definition of assault does not require D to make any physical contact with V.
The actus reus is satisfied as soon as D causes V to apprehend or believe that V is about to
suffer personal violence.
The actus reus of assault is therefore less concerned with the conduct of D, and rather more
concerned with the effect of that conduct on V. The test is not whether D’s conduct was likely to
cause another to apprehend unlawful violence, but whether it had this effect in fact.
If d motions to strike V, but V does not so apprehend, perhaps because she is asleep or she
knows D is bluffing, the actus reus will not be satisfied.
Unlawful personal violence
Includes any non consensual contact with V. The actus reus of assault will therefore be satisfied
where V is caused to apprehend even low level violence. V need not believe that the violence
would be serious or cause injury (Ireland 1998)
How imminent must V believe the violence will be?
V must be caused to apprehend immediate or imminent unlawful personal violence. Threats of
violence at some non imminent point in the future (‘i will beat you up next month’), however
serious, does not constitute assault.
The distinction between imminent violence, which does satisfy the actus reus and non imminent
violence, which does not, is therefore crucial. Courts have applied a part subjective and part
objective approach.
Subjective: we ask what facts V is caused to believe; what V believes the nature of the threat is
2
