Involuntary Manslaughter
Unlawful Act Manslaughter & Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Non-fatal offences against the person:
- S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 – Common assault and battery – 6 months of
imprisonment.
- S47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – Assault occasioning ABH – 5 years
imprisonment.
- S20 OAPA – Assault inflicting GBH or a wound – 5 years imprisonment.
- S18 OAPA – GBH or wounding, with intention to cause GBH – Life imprisonment –
(recklessness).
- D was aware of the risk of the prohibited harm occurring, but went on to take the
risk, without any justification. R v Cunningham 1957.
Assault
Criminal Justice Act 1988
S39 – common assault and battery to be summary offences.
((1)) Common assault and battery shall be summary offences and a person guilty of either of
them shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both.
Definition – “An assault is any act which intentionally, or recklessly, causes another person
to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence” – James J in Fagan v MPR.
Actus reus of assault is causing V to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force
to their person.
Can words alone amount to assault?
R v Constanza 1997 states that words alone can cause a victim to apprehend harm, thus
resulting in an assault.
R v Mead & Belt 1823 – It was stated that “no words or singing are equivalent to an assault.”
The House of Lords went on the overturn this in 1997 in R v Constanza.
R v Wilson 1995 – D shouted “get out the knives,” igniting a physical fight. D was charged
under S47 OAPA 1861. Lord Goddard stated that words alone can amount to an assault. The
case was decided on the physical aspects which demonstrated a battery, meaning the
comments relating to words were merely obiter dicta.
R v Ireland & Burstow 1997 – D & V were engaged, but V ended the relationship. Unhappy
with the decision, D harassed V over several months, making phone calls, sending hate mail,
appearing unexpectedly, causing her severe depression. The issue here was whether
psychiatric injury amounts to bodily assault as per sections 18, 20 and 47 of the Offences
, Against the Person Act 1861. The judge ruled that yes, psychiatric illness can amount to
bodily harm.
Before the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 came into force.
Can words negate an assault?
Yes, words are able to negate an assault.
Tuberville v Savage 1669 – A man placed his hand on his sword, stating “If it were not assize-
time, I would not take such language.” The court ruled than an assault requires both
intention, and the act of assault. It was said that the facts did not give rise as the man
merely stipulated that he would have to intention to assault if it were not assize-time. It was
declared that there could have been no assault as there was no intention and no act of
assault immediate or thereof.
But for conditional threats:
R (Kracher) v Leicester Magistrates’ Court 2013 - During a disagreement, D said "f*** off. If
you come round the back I will beat you up." His conviction for a physical assault (battery)
was quashed but this conditional assault was held to be sufficient for a regular assault.
What is the meaning of apprehending force?
Fear of force being applied.
Stevens v Myers 1830 – D made a violent gesture at the plaintiff by waving a clenched fist
but was prevented from reaching him by the intervention of third parties. D was liable for
assault.
What is the meaning of immediate force?
“… she did not know what the defendant was going to do next, but that, whatever he might
be going to do next, and sufficiently immediately for the purposes of the offence, was
something of a violent nature.” – Smith v Chief Supt Woking Police Station 1983.
“Within a minute or two.” – R v Ireland & Burstow 1997.
“At some time not excluding the immediate future.” – R v Constanza 1997.
Mens rea of assault
Intention to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence or being
reckless as to whether such apprehension is caused.
R v Venna 1975 – D violently resisted an arrest for causing a disturbance, fracturing the
hand of a police officer in the process. D was convicted of assault, causing actual bodily
harm. D appealed that the judge was unsure whether recklessness applying physical force is
sufficient. The appeal was dismissed. “We see no reason in logic or in law why a person who
recklessly applies physical force to another should be outside the criminal law of assault.”
Unlawful Act Manslaughter & Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Non-fatal offences against the person:
- S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 – Common assault and battery – 6 months of
imprisonment.
- S47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – Assault occasioning ABH – 5 years
imprisonment.
- S20 OAPA – Assault inflicting GBH or a wound – 5 years imprisonment.
- S18 OAPA – GBH or wounding, with intention to cause GBH – Life imprisonment –
(recklessness).
- D was aware of the risk of the prohibited harm occurring, but went on to take the
risk, without any justification. R v Cunningham 1957.
Assault
Criminal Justice Act 1988
S39 – common assault and battery to be summary offences.
((1)) Common assault and battery shall be summary offences and a person guilty of either of
them shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both.
Definition – “An assault is any act which intentionally, or recklessly, causes another person
to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence” – James J in Fagan v MPR.
Actus reus of assault is causing V to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force
to their person.
Can words alone amount to assault?
R v Constanza 1997 states that words alone can cause a victim to apprehend harm, thus
resulting in an assault.
R v Mead & Belt 1823 – It was stated that “no words or singing are equivalent to an assault.”
The House of Lords went on the overturn this in 1997 in R v Constanza.
R v Wilson 1995 – D shouted “get out the knives,” igniting a physical fight. D was charged
under S47 OAPA 1861. Lord Goddard stated that words alone can amount to an assault. The
case was decided on the physical aspects which demonstrated a battery, meaning the
comments relating to words were merely obiter dicta.
R v Ireland & Burstow 1997 – D & V were engaged, but V ended the relationship. Unhappy
with the decision, D harassed V over several months, making phone calls, sending hate mail,
appearing unexpectedly, causing her severe depression. The issue here was whether
psychiatric injury amounts to bodily assault as per sections 18, 20 and 47 of the Offences
, Against the Person Act 1861. The judge ruled that yes, psychiatric illness can amount to
bodily harm.
Before the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 came into force.
Can words negate an assault?
Yes, words are able to negate an assault.
Tuberville v Savage 1669 – A man placed his hand on his sword, stating “If it were not assize-
time, I would not take such language.” The court ruled than an assault requires both
intention, and the act of assault. It was said that the facts did not give rise as the man
merely stipulated that he would have to intention to assault if it were not assize-time. It was
declared that there could have been no assault as there was no intention and no act of
assault immediate or thereof.
But for conditional threats:
R (Kracher) v Leicester Magistrates’ Court 2013 - During a disagreement, D said "f*** off. If
you come round the back I will beat you up." His conviction for a physical assault (battery)
was quashed but this conditional assault was held to be sufficient for a regular assault.
What is the meaning of apprehending force?
Fear of force being applied.
Stevens v Myers 1830 – D made a violent gesture at the plaintiff by waving a clenched fist
but was prevented from reaching him by the intervention of third parties. D was liable for
assault.
What is the meaning of immediate force?
“… she did not know what the defendant was going to do next, but that, whatever he might
be going to do next, and sufficiently immediately for the purposes of the offence, was
something of a violent nature.” – Smith v Chief Supt Woking Police Station 1983.
“Within a minute or two.” – R v Ireland & Burstow 1997.
“At some time not excluding the immediate future.” – R v Constanza 1997.
Mens rea of assault
Intention to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence or being
reckless as to whether such apprehension is caused.
R v Venna 1975 – D violently resisted an arrest for causing a disturbance, fracturing the
hand of a police officer in the process. D was convicted of assault, causing actual bodily
harm. D appealed that the judge was unsure whether recklessness applying physical force is
sufficient. The appeal was dismissed. “We see no reason in logic or in law why a person who
recklessly applies physical force to another should be outside the criminal law of assault.”
