Offences ATPA PQ

Assault AR

An Act, which causes V to apprehend immediate unlawful force

Assault, AR cases

R v Nelson - apprehend that they are about to be struck

R v constanza- words amount to an assault

r v ireland- psychiatric injury can be an assault (silence)

tuberville or light- negative an assault

logdon- fear taken from victim not defendent, fake gun

smith v CS of working police- threat of force though silent and unmoved is assault

Assault MR

Intention or recklessness to cause another to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence

Assault MR cases

Fagan- continuing act, leaving car on foot confirmed MR

R v Venna- assault can be recklessly commited

Battery AR

Battery is an unlawful application of force by the defendant upon the victim

Battery AR cases

collins v wilcock- police, officer scratched during an arrest can be assault when not following PACE

R v Thomas- Touching someones clothes is a battery

Santa Bermudez- battery can be by omission

R v Martin- indirect battery, causing panic leading to injury = B

DPP v K- indirect batter, acid in handryer

Fagan- continuing act and battery

Battery MR

intention or recklessness to apply unlawful force

Battery MR cases

ABH AR

an assault or battery, occasioning/causing, ABH

ABH AR cases

R v Roberts- the chain of causation is not broken if Vs response is a natural reaction to the unlawful behavior

R v Miller- any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of V

T v DPP- momentary loss of consciousness is an ABH

DPP v Smith- cutting off a substantial amount of hair can be ABH

R v Chan Fook + R v Ireland- psychiatric injury's can be ABH

ABH MR

D must intend or be subjectively reckless as to whether V apprehends or is subjected to unlawful force

ABH MR cases

R v Savage- only needed the intent to cause an assault or battery to commit an ABH offence

GBH AR

wounding or inflicting GBH

GBH AR cases

Moriarty v Brookes- all 3 layers of skin broken = wound

JJC v Eisenhower- bleeding under surface is not wound

DPP v Smith- really serious harm

R v Bollom- jury can consider characteristics of victims to determine GHB

R v Burstow- psychiatric harm can be GBH

R v Dica + R v Golding - biological harm can amount to GBH

GBH MR

Intending some injury, not GBH or being reckless as to whether any injury was inflicted, D must foresee risk of some injury

GBH MR cases

R v Savage- with intention or recklessness

R v Mowatt- some physical harm to some person albeit minor

SEC 18 AR

wounding or inflicting GBH

SEC 18 AR CASES

R v Roberts- the chain of causation is not broken if Vs response is a natural reaction to the unlawful behavior

R v Miller- any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of V

T v DPP- momentary loss of consciousness is an ABH

DPP v Smith- cutting off a substantial amount of hair can be ABH

R v Chan Fook + R v Ireland- psychiatric injury's can be ABH

SEC 18 MR

D must intend only, recklessness is not sufficient ( intent GBH )

SEC 18 MR cases

R v Taylor- intent to merely wound is not sufficient to be a SEC 18

R v Morrison- police resist is an exception and has the MR or s20 to be a SEC 18