Non-fatal Offences Against the Person
Lecture 8
Fatal offences: murder & manslaughter
Note to self: Not every offence requires intention; for a lot of offences recklessness is
important
The ‘modern’ approach to crimes of violence systematises the worst forms of personal
violence
Excepting the common law offences of assault and battery, the majority of offences (non-
fatal) now stem from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 go to source for
offences against the person = rule
o “the act is itself largely a consolidation of previous statutes governing the law of
violence. Frequent changes to the law have left it in on incoherent and confusing
state, with more provisions repealed than currently in force”
The reason we have non-fatal offences is because the law protects the right to bodily
integrity; the right not to be touched against your wishes.
o For example: sexual offences (but there is an overlap between the two)
Non-fatal offences:
1. Assault (common law but charged under Criminal Justice Act 1988)
2. Battery (common law but charged under Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Both have developed over the years through case law but charged under statute over the
years. The CJA legislation does not set out the individual elements of battery and assault but
they are sort of the codified version of it.
Assault and battery are contrary to common law but the three main offences that are contrary
to the 1861 act are very important:
Lateral offences: least serious to most serious in terms of sentencing
Least serious is assault and battery and them follows:
S. 47 OAPA (ABH) – below s. 20; actual bodily harm
S. 20 OAPA (GBH) – below s.18 – no mens rea present
S. 18 OAPA (GBH with intent) – very serious at the top; just below murder in terms
of seriousness
Things to consider:
Now we are looking at offences where someone hasn’t died, but there is still some
assault; it’s an offence against the person
Remember, when we are thinking about manslaughter, for example, someone has
died but there is a base offence which is constructive manslaughter
Things like assault, battery and actual bodily harm can form the basis of
constructive manslaughter
o For example: the punch case; someone punches someone and the person dies.
This is not murder because they didn’t intent to kill or cause GBH. But if
there’s a base offence of assault and the person has died, that could be
manslaughter
o THIS IS WHY THIS LECTURE IS VERY IMPORTANT = to put all these
pieces together
, Assault
Criminal Justice Act 1988 s. 39
Remember this is a common law offence but when it is charged, it is charged
contrary/under this legislation
Assault did start with the criminal justice act; it existed years before
Legislation doesn’t include elements of offence (actus reus and mens rea of offence is
found within common law). It only includes statutory provision of the offence (ex. fine
not exceed level 5 or no more than 6 months imprisonment) because it is charged in the
magistrate court. MC maximum prison time someone can be tried in MC is 6 months.
Actus reus of assault:
Making someone apprehend the application of immediate force
Mens rea
Intention or recklessness as to making someone apprehend the application of immediate
force
Particular Elements
R v Contanza 1997 Crim LR 576
1. Must be fear of ‘immediate’ or ‘imminent unlawful personal violence’
a. “At some time not excluding the immediate future”
b. D harassed victim writing to her front door and the victim suffered depression
c. Issue: was there fear of immediate personal violence
d. Court: the victim can apprehend the fear in the future
R v Ireland and Burstowe 1997 UKHL 34
2. Words alone
a. A fear of possible violence may suffice and it may be suffered where V is unsure
as to when exactly the threatened attack may occur
b. D made large number of phone call to women and stayed silent
c. One woman suffered psychological harm because of this
d. Courts said a fear of a possible violence is enough where V is unsure when the
attack could happen. Exactly how the fear is created is immaterial; whether its by
word, silence, or even writing. But there must be identification of violence where
the person subjectively felt it; fear of violence is subjective here.
Lodgon v DPP 1976 Crim LR 121
3. Defendant’s intention
a. D showed V a gun and told him he would keep him hostage
b. But the gun was fake so D argued that because gun was fake it was impossible for
him to actual carry it out
c. Court said: No, the fact that he had created a fear of violence was sufficient.
The fact that he was incapable of carrying it out was no defence. As long as
there was apprehension from the victim subjectively, it does not matter if you
are unable to carry out the act. The focus is if the person subjectively was
able to apprehend unlawful personal violence.
Afolabi v CPS 2017 EWHC 2960 Admin
Lecture 8
Fatal offences: murder & manslaughter
Note to self: Not every offence requires intention; for a lot of offences recklessness is
important
The ‘modern’ approach to crimes of violence systematises the worst forms of personal
violence
Excepting the common law offences of assault and battery, the majority of offences (non-
fatal) now stem from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 go to source for
offences against the person = rule
o “the act is itself largely a consolidation of previous statutes governing the law of
violence. Frequent changes to the law have left it in on incoherent and confusing
state, with more provisions repealed than currently in force”
The reason we have non-fatal offences is because the law protects the right to bodily
integrity; the right not to be touched against your wishes.
o For example: sexual offences (but there is an overlap between the two)
Non-fatal offences:
1. Assault (common law but charged under Criminal Justice Act 1988)
2. Battery (common law but charged under Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Both have developed over the years through case law but charged under statute over the
years. The CJA legislation does not set out the individual elements of battery and assault but
they are sort of the codified version of it.
Assault and battery are contrary to common law but the three main offences that are contrary
to the 1861 act are very important:
Lateral offences: least serious to most serious in terms of sentencing
Least serious is assault and battery and them follows:
S. 47 OAPA (ABH) – below s. 20; actual bodily harm
S. 20 OAPA (GBH) – below s.18 – no mens rea present
S. 18 OAPA (GBH with intent) – very serious at the top; just below murder in terms
of seriousness
Things to consider:
Now we are looking at offences where someone hasn’t died, but there is still some
assault; it’s an offence against the person
Remember, when we are thinking about manslaughter, for example, someone has
died but there is a base offence which is constructive manslaughter
Things like assault, battery and actual bodily harm can form the basis of
constructive manslaughter
o For example: the punch case; someone punches someone and the person dies.
This is not murder because they didn’t intent to kill or cause GBH. But if
there’s a base offence of assault and the person has died, that could be
manslaughter
o THIS IS WHY THIS LECTURE IS VERY IMPORTANT = to put all these
pieces together
, Assault
Criminal Justice Act 1988 s. 39
Remember this is a common law offence but when it is charged, it is charged
contrary/under this legislation
Assault did start with the criminal justice act; it existed years before
Legislation doesn’t include elements of offence (actus reus and mens rea of offence is
found within common law). It only includes statutory provision of the offence (ex. fine
not exceed level 5 or no more than 6 months imprisonment) because it is charged in the
magistrate court. MC maximum prison time someone can be tried in MC is 6 months.
Actus reus of assault:
Making someone apprehend the application of immediate force
Mens rea
Intention or recklessness as to making someone apprehend the application of immediate
force
Particular Elements
R v Contanza 1997 Crim LR 576
1. Must be fear of ‘immediate’ or ‘imminent unlawful personal violence’
a. “At some time not excluding the immediate future”
b. D harassed victim writing to her front door and the victim suffered depression
c. Issue: was there fear of immediate personal violence
d. Court: the victim can apprehend the fear in the future
R v Ireland and Burstowe 1997 UKHL 34
2. Words alone
a. A fear of possible violence may suffice and it may be suffered where V is unsure
as to when exactly the threatened attack may occur
b. D made large number of phone call to women and stayed silent
c. One woman suffered psychological harm because of this
d. Courts said a fear of a possible violence is enough where V is unsure when the
attack could happen. Exactly how the fear is created is immaterial; whether its by
word, silence, or even writing. But there must be identification of violence where
the person subjectively felt it; fear of violence is subjective here.
Lodgon v DPP 1976 Crim LR 121
3. Defendant’s intention
a. D showed V a gun and told him he would keep him hostage
b. But the gun was fake so D argued that because gun was fake it was impossible for
him to actual carry it out
c. Court said: No, the fact that he had created a fear of violence was sufficient.
The fact that he was incapable of carrying it out was no defence. As long as
there was apprehension from the victim subjectively, it does not matter if you
are unable to carry out the act. The focus is if the person subjectively was
able to apprehend unlawful personal violence.
Afolabi v CPS 2017 EWHC 2960 Admin
