Criminal O&D Non-Fatal Offences

DPP v Kirwan

• Facts: A sought to appeal conviction of assault causing serious harm cus:

  • Evidence did not comply with the detailed requirements for establishing ‘serious harm’ as per s.1 1997 Act , and instead only ‘harm’

  • argued there was no long term injury or lack of function

  • Also argued that the side effects were not his fault

• Judgement: dismissed appeal

  • Ample evidence that injured suffered substantial impairment of function of left eye, which amounts to serious harm

    • Term serious harm did NOT require proof of injury with permanent or lasting consequences

    • Consequences of the treatment on injury were included as part of the harm suffered by injured party

      • Injured party had blurring in eye because of stitches

DPP v Brown

• Facts: A sought to appeal conviction of assault causing harm (S.3) cus:

  • Injured party had asked him to stage the attack so the injured could be transferred to another prison. Injured had even offered rewards for this.

  • Injured party denied that he consented

• Judgement: Trial judge ruled that consent was not a defence to a charge under s.3 and refused to leave the issue to the jury

• SC dismissed the appeal

  • Lack of consent is ordinarily an element of assault causing harm under s.3

    • Confirmed S.2 and S.3 assault are the same

  • Consent will be ineffective where it is given to further an unlawful or public-policy-offending objective, courts can vitiate consent in such circumstances

DPP v O’Brien

• Facts: A charged with s.2 assault and s.6(1)(b). Appealing arguments were:

1. No evidence that the victim perceived a risk of infection with disease

2. + 2 others grounds not relevant to course

• Judgement: dismissed appeal

1. It was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that victim actually perceived a risk of infection with disease

• Just need to prove that A had the intention to cause fear of infection, or, that A behaved as he did in circumstances where there was likelihood of causing the victim to fear infection

Section 2

Assault
- Without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly

- directly/indirectly applies force/causes impact or causes another to believe they will likely immediately be subjected

• without consent (defence available)

Collins v Wilcock

implied consent to some level of generally acceptable physical contract when participating in society

DPP v K

acid in hand dryer → indirect force = assault

Fagan v Metropolitan Police

assault cannot be established by an omission

Section 2A

Assault aggravated by hatred

• s.3 assault + aggravated by hatred

• list of 10 protected characteristics from s.3 of Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024

Section 3

Assault causing harm

• s.2 assault + harm (harm to body or mind including pain and unconsciousness - s.1)

DPP v Brown

Lack of consent is requirement of s.3, individual cannot consent to serious harm

DPP v Reilly

in context of s.4: doesn’t matter how brief or transient the harm is

R v Ireland

Psychiatric injury is included in ‘actual bodily harm’. Fear that violence can occur at any time is valid, it does not need to occur immediately

Section 3A

Non-fatal strangulation or non-fatal suffocation

• assault mens rea + strangles or suffocates

• consent is a defence s.3A(2)

• slightly higher penatly, helps with public visibility/awareness of law

Section 3B

Assaulting causing harm aggravated by hatred

• s.3 offence + aggravated by hatred

• agg by hatred - s.3 Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024

Section 4

Causing serious harm

• Intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another

• (s.1) Serious harm = substantial risk of death, causes serious disfigurement, substantial loss or impairment of mobility of body as whole or function of particular bodily member or organ (does not include physiological/mental harm)

DPP v Kirwan

• serious harm does not need to be permanent or have lasting consequences

• consequences of treatment included as part of the harm

Section 4A

Non-fatal strangulation or non-fatal suffocation causing serious harm

• intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm by suffocation or strangling

• No defence of consent (DPP v Brown, cant consent to serious harm)

Section 4B

Causing serious harm aggravated by hatred

• s.4 causing serious harm + agg by hatred

• s.3 of Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024

Section 5

Threats to Kill or Cause Serious Harm

• without lawful excuse, intending it be believed, threaten to kill or cause serious harm

Minister for Justice v Machevucius

context is s.5 offence: intent can be inherently implied by nature of the threat described

Section 6-8

Syringe Offences

s.6 - injury or threat with syringe/blood with intention to make victim fear infection (s.6(3) - fear can be transferred to a third person)

s.7 - offence of possession of syringe/blood with intent of doing s.6

s.8 - offence to place/abandon syringe in place where it can injure or cause threat/fear

DPP v O’Brien

Context is syrine offence:

• Mens rea is on the intention of the accused, not the actual effect on victim.

• Test is if the accused intended to make victim fear infection.

Section 12

Poisoning

• knowing the other person does not consent, intentionally or recklessly administers a substance which you know is capable of interfering substantially with bodily functions

Section 10(1)

Harassment

• intentionally or recklessly, persistently, seriously interfering with someones peace or causing alarm/distress

• acts must be such that a reasonable person (objective standard) would realise they interfere/alarm

DPP v Woods

Over 2,000 phones calls accepted as persistent behavior (s.10(1) harassment)

DPP v Lynch

incidents occured over short time frame (3 hours), still harassment (s.10(1))

Section 10(2)

Stalking

• same as s.10(1) harassment, but causing a fear of violence or serious alarm/distress that has a substantial adverse impact of day-to-day activities

• does not require persistence

Section 10A

Prohibition on public or broadcast of certain material

• Offence to publish identifying material of victim of s.10 offence

Section 2&3 of Coco’s Law

Harassement, Harmful Communcations and Related Offences Act 2020

Publishing intimate images

• s.2: distributing, or threatening to, intimate images of another person without consent, with intent to cause harm (or being reckless)

• s.3: s.2 + it in fact seriously interferes with peace/privacy or causes alarm/distress/harm

Section 39 of Domestic Violence Act 2018

Coercive Control

• Persistently engages in behaviour that is controlling or coercive on relevant person, has a serious effect, and a reasonable person (objective standard) would consider likely to have a serious effect

• ‘Relevant person’: civil partner, or someone you've had intimate relationship with

Section 11

Demands for payment of a debt causing alarm

• 11(1)(a)Demands of payment by reason of their frequency are calculated to cause alarm/distress/humiliation 

• Falsely represents that: (b) criminal proceedings lie for non-payments, (c) person is authorised in some official capacity to enforce payment, (d) document is official

Section 13

Endangerment

• Intentionally/recklessly, creates substantial risk of death or serious harm

DPP v Cagney & McGrath

• s.13 of 1997 Act requires proof that accused adverted to risk/harm (recklessness demands advertence)

• A fatality occuring does not indicate that a substantial risk was present, as the death could have been improbable and unrelated

Section 15

False Imprisonment

• intentionally/recklessly: takes/detains, causes so, or otherwise restricts personal liberty without consent

• s.15(2) consent obtained by force/threat/deception does not count

Section 16

Abduction of child by parent

• takes/sends/keeps/causes child under 16 out of the State in defiance of court order or without consent of each legal guardian

Section 2 of FGM Act 2012

Female Genital Mutilation Act 2012, Section 2

Female Genital Mutilation

• Does or attempts an act of female genital mutilation

• Not guilty if: surgical operation, women is >18 and there is no resultant permanent bodily harm

R v Barnes

• Players are deemed to consent to injuries sustained in ruleful game

• criminal proceedings unwanted when the sport organization has its own disciplinary procedures

DPP v RK

• Conviction for HIV transmission under s.4 of 1997 Act

Child and Family Agency v AA

• Failing to take antiretroviral drugs as prescribed for HIV can be considered reckless

• Simply failing to disclose HIV status is not necessarily reckless