Comprehensive Study Guide: Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

Overview of Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

• General Classification:   - There are two primary common law offences against the person: assault and battery.   - The statutory offences, which include Actual Bodily Harm (ABH), Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH), and Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent, are codified under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• Legal System Issues:   - The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is considered a very old statute, which frequently creates challenges and complications within the modern legal system.

Common Assault

• Legal Status:   - It is a common law offence.   - It is classified as a summary offence.   - Defendants are charged under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
• Sentencing:   - The maximum penalty is $6\,months$ of imprisonment or a fine.
• Actus Reus:   - Defined as an act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate and unlawful force being used against them.   - Requirement of an Act: It must be a positive act; an omission (failure to act) is not sufficient for the actus reus of common assault.   - Nature of Fear: The offence requires only that the victim felt fear. No physical force needs to be applied for an assault to occur.   - Interpretation of Immediacy: Immediacy has been interpreted legally to mean "just imminent."
• Key Case Law for Actus Reus:   - Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983): A woman was in a ground-floor flat while a man was in the garden looking in at her. Despite the physical barrier of the window and the uncertainty of his next move, she was frightened. This was held to satisfy the requirement of apprehension of immediate force.   - Constanza (1997): The defendant wrote over $800\,letters$ to the victim. The final two letters contained threats that the victim believed were imminent, which was sufficient for assault.   - Ireland (1997): Silent telephone calls were ruled to constitute an assault because they placed the defendant in immediate contact with the victim and induced fear of immediate force.
• Mens Rea:   - The intention to cause an individual to fear the immediate infliction of unlawful force, or subjective recklessness as to whether such fear is caused.

Common Battery

• Legal Status:   - A common law offence.   - A summary offence.   - Proved and charged under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
• Actus Reus/Application of Force:   - The application of unlawful force against a victim.   - Threshold of Force: The force applied can be as minimal as a simple touch.
• Key Case Law for Actus Reus:   - Collins v Wilcock (1984): Police officers attempted to question two prostitutes who refused to engage. An officer gently placed a hand on the back of one woman's arm to stop her. This was ruled as battery because the officer was not exercising a power of arrest at that moment.   - Thomas (1985): The court held that touching the bottom of a woman's skirt was sufficient for battery, stating that touching a person's clothing is equivalent to touching the person.   - Wood v DPP (2008): A police officer grabbed Wood's arm to check his identity. Since the officer had not formally arrested Wood, the grabbing was deemed a technical assault (battery) by the officer. Consequently, Wood was entitled to struggle and was not guilty of assaulting the police officer.
• Omissions in Battery:   - Battery can be committed via an omission (failure to act).   - DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003): During a search, a police officer asked the defendant if he had any sharp objects in his pockets. He replied "no," but the officer was pricked by a needle upon searching him, causing bleeding. The defendant's failure to warn the officer about the needle constituted the actus reus of battery.
• Mens Rea:   - An intention to apply unlawful physical force to another person, or recklessness as to whether such force is applied.

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)

• Statutory Authority: Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• Actus Reus:   - An assault or a battery that causes Actual Bodily Harm (ABH).   - The underlying actus reus is identical to that of common assault or battery, but it must result in a specific level of injury.
• Defining Actual Bodily Harm:   - Miller (1954): Defined ABH as any harm or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim.   - T v DPP (2003): Established that even a momentary loss of consciousness is sufficient to be classified as ABH.   - DPP v Smith (Michael) (2006): Ruling that cutting off a victim's hair (even without skin injury) can amount to ABH.   - Chanfook (1997): Confirmed that ABH includes psychiatric injury, provided the injury is an identifiable clinical condition (not just mere emotions like fear or distress).   - General Injuries: ABH can be charged for any injury including bruising, grazes, and scratches.
• Mens Rea:   - The mens rea for ABH is the same as for common assault or battery.   - The prosecution does not need to show the defendant intended or foresaw the specific ABH level of injury; they only need to prove the intent or recklessness for the initial assault or battery.
• Key Case Law for Mens Rea:   - Roberts (1971): The defendant, while driving, made sexual advances towards a passenger and tried to remove her coat. Fearing a serious assault, she jumped from the car moving at approximately $30\,miles\,per\,hour$ and sustained minor injuries. Roberts was found guilty under section 47 because he intended the initial unlawful force (the assault in the car), making him liable for the resulting injuries even though he didn't foresee them.   - Savage (1991): The defendant intended to throw a glass of beer over her ex-husband's girlfriend. The glass slipped and cut the victim. Because she intended to apply unlawful force (throwing the beer), she possessed the necessary mens rea for the section 47 offence when injury resulted.

Malicious Wounding and Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) - Section 20

• Statutory Authority: Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• Actus Reus:   - A direct or indirect act or omission which causes wounding or the infliction of grievous bodily harm.   - Charge Differentiation: The offence is split into wounding and GBH; defendants must be charged correctly to ensure a successful conviction.
• Defining Wounding:   - Wounding requires a cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin (both layers).   - JCC v Eisenhower (1983): Internal bleeding in the eye was not classified as a wound because the outer skin remained unbroken.   - Wood (1830): A broken collarbone without a break in the skin was not considered a wound.
• Defining Grievous Bodily Harm:   - Saunders (1985): GBH is defined as "serious harm."   - Burstow (1997): Confirmed that a severe depressive illness resulting from stalking constitutes serious psychiatric injury and qualifies as GBH.   - Bollom (2004): Involving a $17\,month\,old$ child with bruising on the abdomen, legs, and arms. The court ruled that the severity of injuries must be assessed relative to the victim's age and health.   - Dica (2004): Established that biological harm, specifically infecting someone with HIV, constitutes the infliction of GBH.
• Mens Rea:   - The defendant must act "maliciously."   - Cunningham (1957): Interpreted "maliciously" as requiring intention to do the specific harm that was done, or subjective recklessness as to whether such harm should occur (the defendant must foresee the risk of some harm).

Malicious Wounding or Causing Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent - Section 18

• Statutory Authority: Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• Actus Reus:   - Wounding or causing Grievous Bodily Harm.   - The definitions for "wounding" and "GBH" are identical to those used for section 20.   - The prosecution must prove the defendant's act was a substantial cause of the wound or GBH.
• Mens Rea:   - Requires a higher level of intent than section 20. The defendant must have:     1. Specific intent to do some grievous bodily harm; OR     2. Intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of any person.
• Resisting Arrest (Specific MR Rule):   - Morrison (1989): A police officer apprehended the defendant to arrest him. The defendant dived through a window, pulling the officer with him, causing her face to be badly cut. If the intent is to resist arrest, the prosecution only needs to prove recklessness regarding the injury caused during that resistance.
• Key Distinctions:   - Taylor (2009): Held that a mere intention to wound is insufficient for the mens rea of section 18; there must be an intent to cause GBH.   - Intent Types: Intention can be direct or oblique, following the principles established in Nedrick (1986) or Woollin (1998).

CPS Charging Standards

• Purpose: A guidance document for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide the appropriate level of charge for a defendant.
• Criteria for Section 39 vs. Section 47:   - Where a battery causes injury, a choice exists between common assault (s. 39) and ABH (s. 47).   - The Code for Crown Prosecutors allows for factors that may lead to choosing a less grave charge.   - Although any injury more than "transient or trifling" can be ABH, a charge under section 39 is usually preferred if injuries are limited to:     - Grazes     - Scratches     - Abrasions     - Minor bruising

Scenario for Analysis: Halloween Incident

• Context: Eric, wearing a gruesome Halloween mask after drinking beer, enters an Indian takeaway.
• Incident Part 1: The proprietor's wife is terrified. Sanjay (the proprietor) assumes Eric is a robber and brandishes a baseball bat.
• Incident Part 2: Eric flees. Roger and Nicola block the door. Eric punches Roger in the face, breaking his nose.
• Incident Part 3: Nicola, witnessing the blood, screams and runs into the street, where she is hit by a car and injured.
• Incident Part 4: Sanjay wrestles Eric to the ground and strikes him multiple times with the bat, causing serious internal injuries.