s.47 ABH Battery structure

intro

D may be guilty of ABH against V contrary to s.47 of Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

AR of s.47 ABH - Assault meaning

The actus reus of s.47 ABH is an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Assault can mean either an assault or batter. Here, D has committed a battery and the AR of battery is applying unlawful force. D has applied (direct/indirect) force by..., this fulfils the AR of battery which can be the slightest of touch (Thomas) with the absence of consent (Wilcock).

Occasioning meaning aka causation

Occasioning means causing, so factual and legal causation must also be proven. Using the "but for" test (White) it can be said but for [APPLY TO SCENARIO]. The test for legal causation is that D's actions must have made a signifcant contribution, meaning they must be more than a minimal cause (Pagett). Here, D is the sole cause of harm, there are no intervening acts that break the chain. [IF AN INTERVENING ACT IS PRESENT DEAL W/ IT AND WHETHER OR NOT IT BREAKS CAUSATION].So, D is the factual and legal cause of injury. [

ABH definition

ABH was defined in Miller as any hurt or injury which interferes with the health or comfort of the victim, and it must be more than merely trivial or insignificant (Chan Fook). Here, V has suffered [NAME INJURIES] which is likely to interfere with day-to-day health and comfort. They are not trivial or insignificant, so this element is satisfied.

MR of s.47 ABH

The mens rea of s.47 ABH is intention or recklessness as to the initital assault or battery. There is no need to prove D intended or was reckless to ABH (Savage). Here, D has commited a battery so the mens rea of battery needs to be established; the MR of battery id intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force. Direct intention is where the consequence was D's main aim or purpose (Mohan). Recklessness is where D foresees the risk of the consequence and takes it anyway (Cunningham). Here, it was D's.... so this is sufficient to prove ABH.

defences

if yes -> self defence, duress, isnanity, automatism, intoxication

if no: There are no releveant defences avaliable to D.

conclusion

D has both the AR and MR of s.47 and therefore could be guilty of this offence.