Criminal Practice Unit 2 Bail

The police have arrested a man after he pushed his former girlfriend, causing her to fall to the floor and twist her ankle. When he is interviewed by the police, the man admits that he deliberately pushed the victim but says that he did not mean to cause any injury to her and did not realise that he might do so.

What best describes the man’s potential liability for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

The mens rea will be established because the prosecution can show that the man was reckless when he pushed the victim.

The statement references the definition of actual bodily harm (Miller) and it is correct that he assaulted the victim (physical assault) by pushing her and the mens rea is established as he deliberately pushed her.

At 11:00 hours a woman entered a bank and attempted to carry out a robbery. The woman carried a knife as a weapon but did not manage to take any money and ran away when she heard police sirens approaching. A woman has been charged with this offence, due to DNA evidence obtained at the bank placing the woman at the scene. The woman intends to plead not guilty and pending trial, is keen to ensure that she is granted bail. The woman is unemployed and currently staying on a friend’s sofa. On a previous charge for assault, the woman absconded bail so the prosecution will object to the woman being granted bail, on the basis that there are substantial grounds for believing that she will fail to surrender to custody. The woman wants the magistrates’ court to consider granting her conditional bail.

What bail conditions would be most appropriate to offer in this case?

Reporting to a police station on a daily basis and residing in suitable accommodation.

A woman is standing in a queue when a man cuts in front of her. Frustrated, the woman punches the man in the face. The man stumbles backwards and falls over, hitting the floor hard, fracturing his skull. The woman is arrested. During her police interview the woman states, “When I think about it, I should have realised the risk of seriously harming him, but at the time it never crossed my mind. The worst I thought I would do is cause him a minor bruise.”

Is the woman guilty of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm?

Yes, because she foresaw a risk of some harm and caused really serious harm.

The mens rea for inflicting grievous bodily harm (s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) is satisfied if an individual intends or is reckless as to causing actual bodily harm/some harm (R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1991] 4 All ER 698). Here, the woman acknowledges that she foresaw a risk of some harm, went on to take it anyway and that risk was unjustified (Cunningham) (‘the worst I thought I would do is cause him a minor bruise’.)

A woman is standing at a bus stop when she sees a man who has been spreading malicious rumours about her. Angry, the woman shouts at the man to come and speak to her, or she will beat him up. The man hears the woman’s threats and in response, runs away from her. The woman chases after the man, continuing to threaten him. The man is very large, strong, and highly skilled in martial arts; he is not afraid of the woman but wants to avoid a confrontation. In the police interview, the woman admits she only wished to frighten the man.

Is the woman guilty of simple assault?

No, because the man did not fear any immediate unlawful personal force from the woman.

The actus reus for simple assault is causing the apprehension of immediate unlawful personal force. The man hears the woman’s threats and then runs in response, so this is satisfied. The mens rea is that the individual intends or is reckless as to that apprehension. The woman ‘admits she wished to frighten the man’ and so she intends the apprehension.

In preparation for a significant musical competition, a pianist invites his rival to his home, so they can practise together on the pianist’s grand piano. During the rival’s playing, the pianist becomes jealous of his rival’s talent and knocks the lid down on his rival’s fingers, intending to bruise the rival. The rival pulls his hands out, which are cut and bleeding, and runs out of the house.

What is the most serious offence that the pianist could be criminally liable for?

Maliciously wounding. The rival suffers a wound which is the breaking of both layers of the skin, resulting in bleeding (Moriarty v. Brookes). The mens rea requires the pianist to intend, or be reckless, as to causing some bodily harm (R v. Savage; R v. Parmenter) and the pianist wanted to hurt his rival here.

A man is appearing at the magistrates’ court later today, having been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, in relation to an incident that took place outside a local nightclub. The man has a number of similar previous convictions and has also failed to surrender to bail in the past. After the incident the man was heard to make further threats towards the complainant. The man’s solicitor explains to him there is a presumption that bail will be granted to all defendants prior to conviction, but that there is an exception for those charged with an imprisonable offence.

What best describes one of the grounds that would be open to the prosecution to use to oppose the man’s application for bail?

Substantial grounds to believe the man will interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person. It describes one of the grounds in the schedule at Part 1 of the Bail Act 1976.

A man makes his first appearance before the magistrates’ court charged with criminal damage. It is alleged that whilst out running, he broke the wing mirror of a car in a fit of temper after an argument with the driver, causing damage to the value of £300. He denies being the person involved in the altercation with the driver and intends to plead not guilty. He was arrested near the scene and when interviewed at the police station, exercised his right to silence. He has one previous conviction for shoplifting and a good bail record. He is married with two children and earns an annual disposable income of £12,000.

What best describes why it would be in the interests of justice for the man to receive criminal legal aid in the magistrates’ court?

It is in the interests of justice for the man to receive criminal legal aid in the magistrates’ court because a substantial question of law may be involved.

It is in the interests of justice for the man to receive criminal legal aid in the magistrates’ court because a substantial question of law may be involved. There is a possibility that the court may draw adverse inferences under s.34 or s.36 of the CJPOA from the defendant’s refusal to answer questions at the police station. The identification evidence is also disputed.