Criminal law

s.18

• wounding/causing GBH w intent

  • max: life, indictable, serious wounding

• AR: wounding/causing serious mental/phys harm to a person

• MR: intent to cause serious harm

  • DPP v Smith + JJC v Eisenhower

s.20

• Wound/inflicting GBH

  • 5y, either way, wounding - stab, bb

• AR: Wounding/inflicting serious mental/phys harm

• MR: intent to cause some harm/recklesness as to causing some harm

  • JJC v Eisenhower + DPP v Smith

s.47

• OAPA (1961)

• Assault , causing ABH

  • 5y, either way, sever bruising, minor bb

• AR: causing some phys/mental harm

• MR: intent to cause some harm

  • R v savage , DPP v Smith , R v Miller

s.39 - Battery

• CJA (1988)

• max: 6m/£5000 , summary

• AR: application of unlawful force/violence onto another person

• MR: intent/recklessness to apply force

  • Fagan v MPC + Cole v Turner

s.39 - Assault

• CJA (1988)

• max: 6m/£5000 , summary

• AR: cause someone to apprehend immediate application of unlawful force/violence

• MR: intent/recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force/violence

  • R v Lamb

Actus Reus

D must have done the thing that constitutes the offence to be guilty

• types: positive, voluntary act or omission

conduct crimes

D’s conduct is an offence and there is no consequence required eg: drunk driving

consequence crimes

D’s conduct requires a consequence

Omission

Person can’t be guilty of a criminal offence for omitting to do something as it implies a lack of AR

• certain occasions when the D’s failure to act can constitute to the AR of an offence = when there is a duty to act

list the duties

1. duty arising from a contract

2. duty arising from a relationship

3. duty can be taken voluntarily

4. duty arising from dangerous situation

duty arising from a contract

someone’s job to act by they fail to do so

1. R v Pitwood (02): D gatekeeper at crossing, failed to put down when train was due, person died = guilty of manslaughter

duty arising from a relationship

1. R v Gibbins v Proctor (‘18): childs father + partner failed to feed child, died of starvation = guilty

duty can be taken on voluntarily

1. R v Stone v Dobinson (‘77): failed to take care of ill sister who came to live w them = guilty of man slaughter

duty arising from dangerous situation

1. R v Miller (83): squatter fell asleep and started fire, Miller switched room instead of helping dull fire = arson by omission

factual causaiton

1. but for test

• R v White (‘10): D put cyanide in Mom’s drink w intent to kill, died of unrelated heart failure = no factual causation

legal causation

1. consequence must in law be caused by a wrongful act

break in chain of causation

D did not do AR and therefore won’t be guilty

1. Actions of V: V may contribute to own death but event may still be legally attributable in causation to the D

   • R v Roberts (‘72): D made sexual adv towards V, V jumped out

     • naturally foreseeable result = causation

2. If response is unreasonable/not reasonably foreseeable may create break in chain

   • William + Davies (‘92): D & V travelling in same car, D threatened V to hand over wallet , V jumped and was killed

Eggshell principle

take your V as you find him

• R v Blaue (‘75): D stabbed ex gf, V refused blood transfusion on religious grounds + died from blood loss

Medical treatment breaking chain of causation

R v Jordan (‘56): D stabbed V, died 8 days after, Do not guilty as COA found that V had poor treatment in hospital which caused death = no AR

Mens Rea

1. intention: a decision to bring abt the prohibited consequence - R V Mohan (‘76)

2. Oblique intent:

   • R v Woolin (‘98): D threw 3 month old son across wall, V fractured skull + died. D claimed he did not intend to kill son.

• intent may be inferred in two part test

  1. conseq is a “virtually certain” result

  2. D knows that it is a virtual virtual consq

Transferred Malice

MR of an offence can be ‘transferred’ to another identical offence

• “The criminality of the doer of the act s the same, whether it is B Or C who dies” - R v Mitchell (‘83)

• Prevents D’s arguing that there was no MR for the ultimate victim’s injury

Coincidence of AR & MR

D must have the MR for the crime charged at the same time he carries out the AR

• Fagan v MPC

Strict Liabilty

offences require no MR

• Gammon Ltd v AG of HK (‘85): D unintentionally constructed a building that did not comply with regulations. company charged w breach.

  • privy council decided that crime was of strict liability

problems w the offence of assault and the extent to which reform of the law would make it more fair

• no statutory definition of assault so the definition has been left to common law: causing confusion and lacks parliamentary certainty

• common law by a case by case basis may have helped keep offences up to date by making modifications: R V Lamb: element of apprehension

• explain sentencing n act

problems w the offence of battery and the extent to which reform of the law would make it more fair

• no statutory definition of battery so the definition has been left to common law: causing confusion and lacks parliamentary certainty

• common law by a case by case basis may have helped keep offences up to date by making modifications: Cole v Turner: court clarified amnt of force required

• explain sentencing n act

problems w the offence of s.47 offences against a person act and the extent to which reform of the law would make it more fair

• lang used in act is considered outdated: “maliciously” in s.20 and “occasioning in s.47

• carries same max sentence as GBH when GBH is a more serious injury

• tend to downgrade the offence as prosecution realise that a very minor example of ABH may not be enough to convince jury

• possible sentence up to 5y

problems w the offence of s.20 offences against a person act and the extent to which reform of the law would make it more fair

• lang used in act is considered outdated: “maliciously” in s.20 and “occasioning in s.47

• case law has been flexible enough to modify and keep statute up to date by declaring problematic words have common meaning

  • grievous means serious: DPP V Smith

  • maliciously means intent/reckless: R V Cunningham

• sentence for GBH is same as ABH, though it involves more injury

• tend to downgrade the offence as prosecution realise that a very minor example of GBH may not be enough to convince jury

problems w the offence of s.18 offences against a person act and the extent to which reform of the law would make it more fair

• lang used in act is considered outdated: “maliciously” in s.20 and “occasioning in s.47

• case law has been flexible enough to modify and keep statute up to date by declaring problematic words have common meaning

  • grievous means serious: DPP V Smith

  • maliciously means intent/reckless: R V Cunningham

• s.20 and s.18 offences a wound is described as “a break to the skin”, there is no distinction between minor and serious wounds

  • Though, CPS guidelines suggest very minor cuts should be treated as ABH

  • AR for both offences can b the same but s.18 can only be committed w intent and max sentence is life compared to s.20 5 years