CASES – S.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 ABH
ACTUS REUS
R v Thomas – assault case, touching clothes can be assault
R v Constanza – battery case words are sufficient for assault, (verbal or written)
including letters, texts emails
R v Miller – ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim’
R v Chan Fook – The injury cannot be trivial or insignificant, Psychiatric harm could also amount to
ABH providing it is more than ‘mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic’
T v DPP – ABH includes temporary loss of consciousness
DPP v Smith – ABH includes damage to a person’s hair, including cutting a person’s ponytail
Causation:
Factual & legal- Pagett, victims own acts – Roberts, medical treatment – Jordan, act 3rd party, thin skull-
Blaue
MENS REA
R v Savage- (Savage threw beer over the victim. The glass slipped from her hand and
broke, cutting the victim’s wrist) fact that she intended to throw the beer over the woman means
she had the intention to apply unlawful force i.e. the mens rea of battery
R v Mohan – direct intent (accelerated at officer trying to stop him, direct intent to
hurt him with car)
R v Cunningham – recklessness, foresee harm and continues to risk it, maliciously
means subjective recklessness
STRUCTURE – S.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
ABH
s.47 OAPA = to be charged of this need either an assault which leads to actual bodily
harm ABH (victim apprehends immediate unlawful force AND suffers ABH) or a battery which
leads to ABH (defendant applies unlawful force AND victim suffers ABH)
maximum sentence is 5 years imprisonment
ACTUS REUS: assault or battery occasioning (causing) actual bodily harm
Assault -causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force (R v
Constanza: words can be assault) / Battery – applying unlawful force (R
v Thomas: touching clothes)
ACTUS REUS
R v Thomas – assault case, touching clothes can be assault
R v Constanza – battery case words are sufficient for assault, (verbal or written)
including letters, texts emails
R v Miller – ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim’
R v Chan Fook – The injury cannot be trivial or insignificant, Psychiatric harm could also amount to
ABH providing it is more than ‘mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic’
T v DPP – ABH includes temporary loss of consciousness
DPP v Smith – ABH includes damage to a person’s hair, including cutting a person’s ponytail
Causation:
Factual & legal- Pagett, victims own acts – Roberts, medical treatment – Jordan, act 3rd party, thin skull-
Blaue
MENS REA
R v Savage- (Savage threw beer over the victim. The glass slipped from her hand and
broke, cutting the victim’s wrist) fact that she intended to throw the beer over the woman means
she had the intention to apply unlawful force i.e. the mens rea of battery
R v Mohan – direct intent (accelerated at officer trying to stop him, direct intent to
hurt him with car)
R v Cunningham – recklessness, foresee harm and continues to risk it, maliciously
means subjective recklessness
STRUCTURE – S.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
ABH
s.47 OAPA = to be charged of this need either an assault which leads to actual bodily
harm ABH (victim apprehends immediate unlawful force AND suffers ABH) or a battery which
leads to ABH (defendant applies unlawful force AND victim suffers ABH)
maximum sentence is 5 years imprisonment
ACTUS REUS: assault or battery occasioning (causing) actual bodily harm
Assault -causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force (R v
Constanza: words can be assault) / Battery – applying unlawful force (R
v Thomas: touching clothes)
