lOMoARcPSD|805298
Lecture notes, lecture semester 1 - Specific offences handout
Criminal Law (University of Leicester)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
, lOMoARcPSD|805298
3. SPECIFIC OFFENCES
Constructing specific offences
• Identify the potential offence label
Identify the actus reus required to prove the offence (prohibited result;
causation; relevant circumstances). Apply to facts.
Identify the mens rea required to prove the offence (must intention or
subjective recklessness be proved?). Apply to facts.
• Can criminal liability be established?
• Offences covered: assault; battery; assault occasioning ABH; malicious
wounding/inflicting GBH; wounding/causing GBH with intent.
Offences against the person (non-sexual):
There has been a significant reduction in the number of violent offences reported to the
police over the past 5-6 years with official statistics showing the number of crimes falling by
19% from 2007/8.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales, which is based on around 50,000 interviews with
persons aged 16 or over living in private households, estimated that there were 1.68 million
offences of violence in 2012/13. In line with recorded offences, the estimated number of
violent offences has reduced by 24% over the past 5-6 years.
In fact, the CSEW found that 46% of all CSEW violent incidents involved no injury to the
victim.
Rationality in the criminal law?
Not a true ‘hierarchy’ of offences;
principle of correspondence frequently breached.
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 “is a ragbag of offences brought together form a
wide variety of sources with no attempt, as the draftsman frankly acknowledged, to
introduce consistency as to substance or as to form”
(Prof JC Smith, 1991)
A. NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
I. COMMON ASSAULT AND BATTERY
Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39 – refers to ‘common assault and battery’ as two separate
offences while s40(3) refers only to a ‘common assault’. In Lynsey it was held that this latter
phrase includes a battery
the statute contains no definition of these two things and one has to turn to the
common law to discover their constitutional elements. A common assault is putting
someone in fear of immediate force; a battery is the actual infliction of force on a
person
both of these offences are only triable summarily (in the magistrates court) and
subject to a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment. These offences can be
used in many cases where injury has resulted and a more serious charge could have
been brought. The CPS Charging Standards state that where there is no injury or
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
, lOMoARcPSD|805298
where injuries are not serious, the offence charged should generally be common
assault.
Under s11 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, common assault is
an alternative verdict to more serious charges of aggravated assault even if the count
has not been included in the indictment.
(i) Technical (or Psychic) Assault
• actus reus of assault = D must make V apprehend imminent force.
Actus reus
The D must do something to make the victim apprehend imminent force. It is often stated
that the V must fear an immediate attack. This latter formulation, while descriptive of most
situations of technical assault, is deceptive for two reasons. First, the victim, need not be
placed in ‘fear’ in the sense of being frightened: he might be confident in their ability to repel
the attack. They are nevertheless assaulted as they are made to apprehend the force.
Secondly, they need not apprehend an ‘attack’ in the sense of a severe measure of aggressive
or destructive force; they need only apprehend any degree of force, which, as we shall see, in
some circumstances need amount to little more than an unlawful touching.
R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1997] 4 All ER 225
D made silent phone calls to 3 women at night. women suffering psychiatric
illness.women argued assault. Could such conduct amount to an assault?
HL – words and gestures can constitute assault. whether it does depends on the circustances,
really depends what was in the mind of the victim so for assault you need to look at both the
state of mind of the D and also the V cos it’s a question of whether the V apprehended
imminent force
- held that the term ‘assault’ in s.47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 includes
both a common assault and battery
- appeals dismissed
- he was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary s47 of the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861. One of the issues on appeal was whether such conduct could
amount to an assault.
Read v Coker (1853) 13 CB 850
• conditional threat = assault
• D said will break Vs neck if leave = amounted to assault
• held to be an assault to threaten to break the Vs neck if he did not leave the premises
• in such a case there is a threat to use immediate force; the victim DOES apprehend
immediate force and the onus is on him to do something to avert that force
Smith v Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr App R 234
V saw man looking through window late at night and she was frightened. even tho D was
outside the room and would have had to break the window to get in she had apprehended a
sufficiently immediate application of force for him to be liable for assault
held that a woman had been assaulted when she saw a man looking through her
closed bedsitting room window at night. Although he was outside her room, and
would have had to break or force open her window and climb in before he could have
2
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
Lecture notes, lecture semester 1 - Specific offences handout
Criminal Law (University of Leicester)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
, lOMoARcPSD|805298
3. SPECIFIC OFFENCES
Constructing specific offences
• Identify the potential offence label
Identify the actus reus required to prove the offence (prohibited result;
causation; relevant circumstances). Apply to facts.
Identify the mens rea required to prove the offence (must intention or
subjective recklessness be proved?). Apply to facts.
• Can criminal liability be established?
• Offences covered: assault; battery; assault occasioning ABH; malicious
wounding/inflicting GBH; wounding/causing GBH with intent.
Offences against the person (non-sexual):
There has been a significant reduction in the number of violent offences reported to the
police over the past 5-6 years with official statistics showing the number of crimes falling by
19% from 2007/8.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales, which is based on around 50,000 interviews with
persons aged 16 or over living in private households, estimated that there were 1.68 million
offences of violence in 2012/13. In line with recorded offences, the estimated number of
violent offences has reduced by 24% over the past 5-6 years.
In fact, the CSEW found that 46% of all CSEW violent incidents involved no injury to the
victim.
Rationality in the criminal law?
Not a true ‘hierarchy’ of offences;
principle of correspondence frequently breached.
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 “is a ragbag of offences brought together form a
wide variety of sources with no attempt, as the draftsman frankly acknowledged, to
introduce consistency as to substance or as to form”
(Prof JC Smith, 1991)
A. NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
I. COMMON ASSAULT AND BATTERY
Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39 – refers to ‘common assault and battery’ as two separate
offences while s40(3) refers only to a ‘common assault’. In Lynsey it was held that this latter
phrase includes a battery
the statute contains no definition of these two things and one has to turn to the
common law to discover their constitutional elements. A common assault is putting
someone in fear of immediate force; a battery is the actual infliction of force on a
person
both of these offences are only triable summarily (in the magistrates court) and
subject to a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment. These offences can be
used in many cases where injury has resulted and a more serious charge could have
been brought. The CPS Charging Standards state that where there is no injury or
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
, lOMoARcPSD|805298
where injuries are not serious, the offence charged should generally be common
assault.
Under s11 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, common assault is
an alternative verdict to more serious charges of aggravated assault even if the count
has not been included in the indictment.
(i) Technical (or Psychic) Assault
• actus reus of assault = D must make V apprehend imminent force.
Actus reus
The D must do something to make the victim apprehend imminent force. It is often stated
that the V must fear an immediate attack. This latter formulation, while descriptive of most
situations of technical assault, is deceptive for two reasons. First, the victim, need not be
placed in ‘fear’ in the sense of being frightened: he might be confident in their ability to repel
the attack. They are nevertheless assaulted as they are made to apprehend the force.
Secondly, they need not apprehend an ‘attack’ in the sense of a severe measure of aggressive
or destructive force; they need only apprehend any degree of force, which, as we shall see, in
some circumstances need amount to little more than an unlawful touching.
R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1997] 4 All ER 225
D made silent phone calls to 3 women at night. women suffering psychiatric
illness.women argued assault. Could such conduct amount to an assault?
HL – words and gestures can constitute assault. whether it does depends on the circustances,
really depends what was in the mind of the victim so for assault you need to look at both the
state of mind of the D and also the V cos it’s a question of whether the V apprehended
imminent force
- held that the term ‘assault’ in s.47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 includes
both a common assault and battery
- appeals dismissed
- he was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary s47 of the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861. One of the issues on appeal was whether such conduct could
amount to an assault.
Read v Coker (1853) 13 CB 850
• conditional threat = assault
• D said will break Vs neck if leave = amounted to assault
• held to be an assault to threaten to break the Vs neck if he did not leave the premises
• in such a case there is a threat to use immediate force; the victim DOES apprehend
immediate force and the onus is on him to do something to avert that force
Smith v Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr App R 234
V saw man looking through window late at night and she was frightened. even tho D was
outside the room and would have had to break the window to get in she had apprehended a
sufficiently immediate application of force for him to be liable for assault
held that a woman had been assaulted when she saw a man looking through her
closed bedsitting room window at night. Although he was outside her room, and
would have had to break or force open her window and climb in before he could have
2
Downloaded by Shrina Sokhi ()
