NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
Most of our criminal law was common law and over time, parliament was then established and began to
make statutory law
Recklessness is easier to prove than intention
Harassment:
Must take place on 2 or more occasions, but doesn’t have to have a bad motive
Protection from Harassment Act 1997:
- Section 2 – offence of harassment - Course of conduct harasses
- Section 4 – fear of violence - Conduct causes fear of violence
- MR: D knows or ought to know course of conduct amounts to harassment (s.1(1)(b)) or will cause
ear of violence (s.4(1))
Stalking:
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
- S2A – offence of stalking
o Course of conduct amounts to stalking– must take place on two+ occasions
o Stalking includes: (a) following (b) contacting, or attempting to contact (c) publishing any statement
or other material, (d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email (e) loitering (f) interfering
with any property (g) watching or spying (s.2A (3))
- S4A – Fear of violence or serious alarm or distress
o Conduct amounts to stalking and causes fear of violence, serious alarm or distress on 2 +
occasions
- MR: D knows or ought to know course of conduct amounts to harassment (s.2A(2)(c)) or will
cause fear of violence, serious alarm or distress (s.4A (1))
Common Assault and Battery:
s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
max sentence = 6 months
‘Technical assault’, ‘common assault’ – often used to refer to assault and battery as 1 offence, but
they are 2 separate offences
DPP V Little 1992
Assault = an act by which D, intentionally or recklessly, causes V to apprehend immediate and
unlawful personal violence
Stephen v Myers 1830, Ireland 1998
Apprehension – ‘at some point not excluding the immediate future’
Battery = an act by which D, intentionally or recklessly, inflicts unlawful personal violence upon
victim - Cole v Turner 1705
Assault:
AR: Any act by D which causes V to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence.
Apprehension - Contanza 1997: D harassed V over e period of 20 months, sending threatening letters,
writing on her front door, and taking items from her washing. V suffered clinical depression as a result. D
was charged with assault causing ABH. D claimed that the letters could not have caused V to anticipate an
immediate threat - Court held apprehension to mean ‘at some point not excluding the immediate
future’
Unlawful – non-consensual
How immediate must the threat be:
- Ireland 1998
- Contanza 1997 – Court held apprehension to mean ‘at some point not excluding the
immediate future’
Words can amount to violence - Constanza [1997]
- Silence can amount to violence - Ireland 1998
Conditional threats - Tuberville v Savage 1669 - “If it were not assize time, I would not take such
language from you”
, MR: intention or recklessness (subjective)
Venna [1976];
upheld in Spratt [1990];
followed in Savage and Parmenter [1991] *most important
Battery AR: unlawful personal violence against the person – Dudley v Stevenson ‘sanctity of life’
: How much violence is needed? Faulkner v Talbot 1981, Lord Lane - “any intentional
touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse”
Does battery require physical contact? Thomas 1985 – D (a school caretaker) touched the
hem of a 12-year-old pupil’s skirt. Charged with the (now repealed) sexual offence of indecent
assault which, like battery, required touching. – COA ‘there could be no dispute that that if you
touch a person’s clothes while he is wearing them that is equivalent to touching him.’
What about everyday contact between people? Collins v Willcock 1984
Indirect contact? DPP v K 1990 – D committed battery when he poured acid into a toilet
hand-dryer, causing the next user to be sprayed
- Martin 1881 – agreed that battery could be found where D digs a pit for V to fall into, or
causes injury through the placing of an obstruction.
Implied consent: Wood v DPP 2008 – D was restrained by V, a police officer, as he left a
public house. Importantly, V was not in the process of arresting D, but merely restraining him in
order to establish his identity. D resisted, and was charged with assaulting the police officer.
MR: intention or recklessness as to unlawful personal violence
Venna [1976]; upheld in Spratt [1990]; followed in Savage and Parmenter [1991]
Can the AR be satisfied by an omission?
Santana-Bermudez v DPP 2004 – D assured V, who was a policeman, that he was not carrying
any ‘sharps’ (hypodermic needles) before she searched him. He was, and V was injured. D was
charged with battery occasioning actual bodily harm.
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH):
s47 - Offences under the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861 - “Whosoever shall be
convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable…”
Max sentence = 5 years
AR: assault OR battery ABH = “includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health
occasioning in actual or comfort of the prosecutor. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but
bodily harm must, no doubt, be more than merely transient and trifling.”- Donovan
1934
Includes psychiatric injury – but must be a recognised psychiatric
injury (Chan-Fook 1994; Ireland 1998; Dhaliwal 2006)
MR: same as for assault No additional MR for the bodily harm Savage and Parmenter 1992
or battery
Wounding or inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH):
s20, Offences Against the Person Act 1861:“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict
any grievous bodily harm …”
Maximum sentence 5 years
AR: Wounding or Wounding: Every layer of the skin must be broken C v Eisenhower 1984
inflicting grievous GBH = “Really serious harm” DPP v Smith 1961
bodily harm - Includes really serious psychiatric injury Burstow 1998
- Transmission of disease? Dica 2004
MR: intention or recklessness as to SOME harm Savage and Parmenter 1992
Identify which are specific or basic
Wounding or Causing GBH with intent:
s18, Offences Against the Person Act 1861:“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means
whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, [...] with intent, [...] to do some [...]
grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any
person, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable [...] to be kept in penal servitude for
life [...]”
Most of our criminal law was common law and over time, parliament was then established and began to
make statutory law
Recklessness is easier to prove than intention
Harassment:
Must take place on 2 or more occasions, but doesn’t have to have a bad motive
Protection from Harassment Act 1997:
- Section 2 – offence of harassment - Course of conduct harasses
- Section 4 – fear of violence - Conduct causes fear of violence
- MR: D knows or ought to know course of conduct amounts to harassment (s.1(1)(b)) or will cause
ear of violence (s.4(1))
Stalking:
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
- S2A – offence of stalking
o Course of conduct amounts to stalking– must take place on two+ occasions
o Stalking includes: (a) following (b) contacting, or attempting to contact (c) publishing any statement
or other material, (d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email (e) loitering (f) interfering
with any property (g) watching or spying (s.2A (3))
- S4A – Fear of violence or serious alarm or distress
o Conduct amounts to stalking and causes fear of violence, serious alarm or distress on 2 +
occasions
- MR: D knows or ought to know course of conduct amounts to harassment (s.2A(2)(c)) or will
cause fear of violence, serious alarm or distress (s.4A (1))
Common Assault and Battery:
s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
max sentence = 6 months
‘Technical assault’, ‘common assault’ – often used to refer to assault and battery as 1 offence, but
they are 2 separate offences
DPP V Little 1992
Assault = an act by which D, intentionally or recklessly, causes V to apprehend immediate and
unlawful personal violence
Stephen v Myers 1830, Ireland 1998
Apprehension – ‘at some point not excluding the immediate future’
Battery = an act by which D, intentionally or recklessly, inflicts unlawful personal violence upon
victim - Cole v Turner 1705
Assault:
AR: Any act by D which causes V to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence.
Apprehension - Contanza 1997: D harassed V over e period of 20 months, sending threatening letters,
writing on her front door, and taking items from her washing. V suffered clinical depression as a result. D
was charged with assault causing ABH. D claimed that the letters could not have caused V to anticipate an
immediate threat - Court held apprehension to mean ‘at some point not excluding the immediate
future’
Unlawful – non-consensual
How immediate must the threat be:
- Ireland 1998
- Contanza 1997 – Court held apprehension to mean ‘at some point not excluding the
immediate future’
Words can amount to violence - Constanza [1997]
- Silence can amount to violence - Ireland 1998
Conditional threats - Tuberville v Savage 1669 - “If it were not assize time, I would not take such
language from you”
, MR: intention or recklessness (subjective)
Venna [1976];
upheld in Spratt [1990];
followed in Savage and Parmenter [1991] *most important
Battery AR: unlawful personal violence against the person – Dudley v Stevenson ‘sanctity of life’
: How much violence is needed? Faulkner v Talbot 1981, Lord Lane - “any intentional
touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse”
Does battery require physical contact? Thomas 1985 – D (a school caretaker) touched the
hem of a 12-year-old pupil’s skirt. Charged with the (now repealed) sexual offence of indecent
assault which, like battery, required touching. – COA ‘there could be no dispute that that if you
touch a person’s clothes while he is wearing them that is equivalent to touching him.’
What about everyday contact between people? Collins v Willcock 1984
Indirect contact? DPP v K 1990 – D committed battery when he poured acid into a toilet
hand-dryer, causing the next user to be sprayed
- Martin 1881 – agreed that battery could be found where D digs a pit for V to fall into, or
causes injury through the placing of an obstruction.
Implied consent: Wood v DPP 2008 – D was restrained by V, a police officer, as he left a
public house. Importantly, V was not in the process of arresting D, but merely restraining him in
order to establish his identity. D resisted, and was charged with assaulting the police officer.
MR: intention or recklessness as to unlawful personal violence
Venna [1976]; upheld in Spratt [1990]; followed in Savage and Parmenter [1991]
Can the AR be satisfied by an omission?
Santana-Bermudez v DPP 2004 – D assured V, who was a policeman, that he was not carrying
any ‘sharps’ (hypodermic needles) before she searched him. He was, and V was injured. D was
charged with battery occasioning actual bodily harm.
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH):
s47 - Offences under the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861 - “Whosoever shall be
convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable…”
Max sentence = 5 years
AR: assault OR battery ABH = “includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health
occasioning in actual or comfort of the prosecutor. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but
bodily harm must, no doubt, be more than merely transient and trifling.”- Donovan
1934
Includes psychiatric injury – but must be a recognised psychiatric
injury (Chan-Fook 1994; Ireland 1998; Dhaliwal 2006)
MR: same as for assault No additional MR for the bodily harm Savage and Parmenter 1992
or battery
Wounding or inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH):
s20, Offences Against the Person Act 1861:“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict
any grievous bodily harm …”
Maximum sentence 5 years
AR: Wounding or Wounding: Every layer of the skin must be broken C v Eisenhower 1984
inflicting grievous GBH = “Really serious harm” DPP v Smith 1961
bodily harm - Includes really serious psychiatric injury Burstow 1998
- Transmission of disease? Dica 2004
MR: intention or recklessness as to SOME harm Savage and Parmenter 1992
Identify which are specific or basic
Wounding or Causing GBH with intent:
s18, Offences Against the Person Act 1861:“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means
whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, [...] with intent, [...] to do some [...]
grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any
person, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable [...] to be kept in penal servitude for
life [...]”
