Non-Fatal Offences- Assault occasioning ABH
ABH
-ABH set out in: s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA)
-Commit a common assault (or battery) on the victim and as a result they have the injury of actual bodily harm.
^^^^Least serious of all the offences within the OAPA.
-Offences to commit an assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
-ABH= Triable-either way offence
-Max sentence for ABH is 5 years imprisonment.
-No statutory definition of ‘assault’ or ‘ABH’- case law guides us
-Must be unlawful
-ABH definition: ‘Assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm to V and D intends or is subjectively reckless as to whether the victim
fears unlawful force or is actually subjected to unlawful force’
-Necessary to prove that there was an assault or battery that caused the ABH= NO POINT MENTION s.39 CRIM JUSTICE ACT!!!
-Need to look at the severity of injuries to decide whether ABH or assault/battery
R v Miller: “Actual bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim” (INCLUDE
EVERYTIME)
-Include in opening paragraph to explain why you believe it is an ABH not just a common assault- JUSTIFY
ABH Injuries: COA:
-Breaks (arm, leg) ‘Actual’= so trivial as to be wholly significant
-Severe bruising ‘Harm’= injury which goes beyond interference with the health of
-Any cut that is not life threatening the victim.
-Fractures ‘Bodily’= not limited to harm to skin, flesh, bones but includes injury
-Loss of teeth/chipped tooth to the nervous system and brain- recognised psychiatric harm.
-Any form of depression- not mere emotions such as fear, Chan Fook: ABH doesn’t include ‘mere emotions such as fear,
distress/panic distress or panic’ nor does it include ‘states of mind that are not
Confirmed by CPS charging standards. themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition’
Chan Fook: Nervous or hysterical condition could also be ABH. R v Burstow: Bodily harm can include recognised psychiatric illness
T v DPP: Loss of consciousness, even momentarily is ABH.
DPP v Smith: Cutting someone’s hair- attached to head- ABH
(substantial amount of hair)
AR for Assault: AR for Battery:
1.ACT: -Application of unlawful force to another person
-Must be either act or words (written/verbal) 1. Force
-Omission is not enough - ‘even the slightest touch’
-Hill v Baxter (voluntary act) -Confirmed in Collins v Wilcock: touching someone to get his attention
-R v Constanza: written words can be enough for assault was acceptable, providing the contact used was necessary and Wood
-R v Ireland: Silent phone calls are assault (Fraser) v DPP
2. Something in the act must cause the V to apprehend the infliction -R v Thomas: touching someone’s clothes= battery offence
of immediate unlawful violence: 2. Act/Omission
-Apprehension/Fear: V needs to be in fear -Direct Act: Hill v Baxter
No fear means no assault charge as in R v Lamb -Indirect Act: DPP v K
-Immediate: Must be a possibility that the force could be applied -Continuing Act: Fagan
immediately as in Smith v Chief Constable of Woking -Omission- judge Stephen J Quote + 7 exceptions: R v Miller, DPP v
Immediate can mean imminent. Santa-Bermudez
Words indicating no immediate assault= no charge: Tuberville v 3. Unlawful
Savage/R v Light -A v UK: No injury must be left (The Children Act 2004)
Unlawful
MR for Assault: MR for Battery:
-Direct Intention: ‘an intention to cause another to fear immediate -Direct Intention: ‘an intention to apply unlawful physical force to
unlawful personal violence’ (Mohan, Inglis, desired aim achieved) another’ (Mohan, Inglis, desired aim is achieved)
-Recklessness: ‘recklessness as to whether such fear is caused’ (wild -Recklessness: ‘recklessness as to whether unlawful force is applied’
carelessness and disregard for consequences, Cunningham, tests, (wild carelessness and disregard for consequences, Cunningham, tests,
Savage) Savage)
-R v Roberts: No need for D to intend or be reckless to cause ABH, just need MR for common assault/battery
-Confirmed in Parmenter and Savage
-Transferred Malice (Mitchell, Pembilton)
-Continuing Act: Fagan
-Coincidence Rule: Thabo Meli v R & Church
ABH
-ABH set out in: s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA)
-Commit a common assault (or battery) on the victim and as a result they have the injury of actual bodily harm.
^^^^Least serious of all the offences within the OAPA.
-Offences to commit an assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
-ABH= Triable-either way offence
-Max sentence for ABH is 5 years imprisonment.
-No statutory definition of ‘assault’ or ‘ABH’- case law guides us
-Must be unlawful
-ABH definition: ‘Assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm to V and D intends or is subjectively reckless as to whether the victim
fears unlawful force or is actually subjected to unlawful force’
-Necessary to prove that there was an assault or battery that caused the ABH= NO POINT MENTION s.39 CRIM JUSTICE ACT!!!
-Need to look at the severity of injuries to decide whether ABH or assault/battery
R v Miller: “Actual bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim” (INCLUDE
EVERYTIME)
-Include in opening paragraph to explain why you believe it is an ABH not just a common assault- JUSTIFY
ABH Injuries: COA:
-Breaks (arm, leg) ‘Actual’= so trivial as to be wholly significant
-Severe bruising ‘Harm’= injury which goes beyond interference with the health of
-Any cut that is not life threatening the victim.
-Fractures ‘Bodily’= not limited to harm to skin, flesh, bones but includes injury
-Loss of teeth/chipped tooth to the nervous system and brain- recognised psychiatric harm.
-Any form of depression- not mere emotions such as fear, Chan Fook: ABH doesn’t include ‘mere emotions such as fear,
distress/panic distress or panic’ nor does it include ‘states of mind that are not
Confirmed by CPS charging standards. themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition’
Chan Fook: Nervous or hysterical condition could also be ABH. R v Burstow: Bodily harm can include recognised psychiatric illness
T v DPP: Loss of consciousness, even momentarily is ABH.
DPP v Smith: Cutting someone’s hair- attached to head- ABH
(substantial amount of hair)
AR for Assault: AR for Battery:
1.ACT: -Application of unlawful force to another person
-Must be either act or words (written/verbal) 1. Force
-Omission is not enough - ‘even the slightest touch’
-Hill v Baxter (voluntary act) -Confirmed in Collins v Wilcock: touching someone to get his attention
-R v Constanza: written words can be enough for assault was acceptable, providing the contact used was necessary and Wood
-R v Ireland: Silent phone calls are assault (Fraser) v DPP
2. Something in the act must cause the V to apprehend the infliction -R v Thomas: touching someone’s clothes= battery offence
of immediate unlawful violence: 2. Act/Omission
-Apprehension/Fear: V needs to be in fear -Direct Act: Hill v Baxter
No fear means no assault charge as in R v Lamb -Indirect Act: DPP v K
-Immediate: Must be a possibility that the force could be applied -Continuing Act: Fagan
immediately as in Smith v Chief Constable of Woking -Omission- judge Stephen J Quote + 7 exceptions: R v Miller, DPP v
Immediate can mean imminent. Santa-Bermudez
Words indicating no immediate assault= no charge: Tuberville v 3. Unlawful
Savage/R v Light -A v UK: No injury must be left (The Children Act 2004)
Unlawful
MR for Assault: MR for Battery:
-Direct Intention: ‘an intention to cause another to fear immediate -Direct Intention: ‘an intention to apply unlawful physical force to
unlawful personal violence’ (Mohan, Inglis, desired aim achieved) another’ (Mohan, Inglis, desired aim is achieved)
-Recklessness: ‘recklessness as to whether such fear is caused’ (wild -Recklessness: ‘recklessness as to whether unlawful force is applied’
carelessness and disregard for consequences, Cunningham, tests, (wild carelessness and disregard for consequences, Cunningham, tests,
Savage) Savage)
-R v Roberts: No need for D to intend or be reckless to cause ABH, just need MR for common assault/battery
-Confirmed in Parmenter and Savage
-Transferred Malice (Mitchell, Pembilton)
-Continuing Act: Fagan
-Coincidence Rule: Thabo Meli v R & Church
