Non-Fatal Offences (Lecture Slides for Weeks 4 AND 5)(1)

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON

Overview

  • Lecturer: Dr. Adam McCann, Associate Professor in Criminal Law & Criminal Justice.

  • Course: LW1CRI Criminal Law – 2024/25.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

  • The lecture series aims to:

    • Understand the hierarchy of existing non-fatal offences against the person.

    • Know key elements of the five most common offences.

    • Understand the law related to the defence of consent.

    • Recognize main issues with the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861.

    • Evaluate the Law Commission’s latest reform proposals.

INTRODUCTION

Key Principles

  • Collins v Wilcock [1984]: Every person’s body is inviolable.

  • Offences Against the Person Act 1861: Approximately 26,000 prosecutions per year under this Act.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861

Deficiencies in the OAPA

  • Outdated drafting style with irrelevant offences.

  • Lacks a coherent hierarchy of offences.

  • Arbitrary grading of offences that don’t correspond to seriousness.

  • Overlap between offences resulting in confusion.

  • Archaic language and misleading terminology.

OVERVIEW: BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CORE OFFENCES

  • Core Offences include:

    • Assault (Common Law & Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988).

    • Battery (Common Law & Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988).

    • Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (s. 47 OAPA 1861).

    • Malicious Wounding or Infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm (s. 20 OAPA 1861).

    • Intentionally Causing Grievous Bodily Harm (s. 18 OAPA 1861).

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

Legal Definition

  • Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988: Common assault and battery are summary offences with possible penalties of a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months.

THE CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE

  • Assault involves the threat of force (apprehension).

  • Battery involves actual contact (physical force).

ASSAULT

Elements

  • Actus Reus: D caused V to apprehend imminent unlawful force.

  • Mens Rea: D intended or was reckless about causing V to apprehend imminent unlawful force.

Apprehension of Force

  • Cases:

    • Constanza [1997] 2 Cr App Rep 492.

    • Logdon v DPP [1976].

    • Ireland [1997] 4 All ER 225.

Communication of Threat

  • Include:

    • Threatening gestures (Tuberville v Savage [1669]).

    • Words alone (Ireland [1997]).

    • Silent phone calls (Ireland [1997]).

Imminence

  • Definition explored through case law, e.g., Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983).

Unlawful Force

  • Critical aspect: V must apprehend unlawful force, unless consent is given or defensive force is applied.

Mental Element

  • Mens Rea for assault: intention or recklessness.

BATTERY

Elements

  • Actus Reus: D touched or applied force to V.

  • Mens Rea: D intended or was reckless regarding the application of force.

Definition of Battery

  • Lord Lane CJ in Faulkner v Talbot [1981]: Battery is any intentional (or reckless) touching of another without consent and without lawful excuse.

What Constitutes ‘Touching’?

  • Cases covering various interpretations:

    • Thomas [1985]: Touching of clothing.

    • Fagan v MPC [1969]: Touching through an object.

    • DPP v K [1990]: Indirect touching.

    • Santana-Bermudez [2004]: Touching by omission.

Everyday Touching

  • KD v CC of Hampshire [2005]: Everyday touching is acceptable in ordinary life.

Mental Element

  • Same as assault: intention or recklessness.

ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM (ABH)

Definition

  • Actus Reus: D commits an assault/battery causing V actual bodily harm.

  • Mens Rea: Intention or recklessness regarding the assault/battery.

Legal Interpretation

  • ABH includes 'any hurt or injury' going beyond 'transient and trifling' (Miller [1954], T v DPP [2003]). Includes psychological harm if medically recognized.

MALICIOUS WOUNDING OR INFLICTING GBH (S.20)

Elements

  • Actus Reus: D unlawfully wounded/injured V.

  • Mens Rea: D intended or was reckless about causing some harm.

Legal Implications

  • Definitions of terms like 'wound' and 'grievous bodily harm' explained through case law (Smith v DPP [1961]).

MALICIOUS WOUNDING OR CAUSING GBH WITH INTENT (S.18)

Details

  • Actus Reus: D unlawfully wounded or caused GBH.

  • Mens Rea: Intended to cause GBH or to resist lawful arrest.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS

Legislative Framework

  • Sections 29, 146, and 70 of various Acts highlight the seriousness when assaults involve aggravating factors such as race, disability, or domestic abuse.

CONSENT TO HARM

Fundamental Questions

  • Considering whether the infliction of harm on a willing recipient should be criminalized under certain circumstances.

Legal Standpoint

  • Section 1(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 emphasizes the importance of capacity in giving valid consent.

Cases Influencing Consent

  • Various landmark cases help establish what constitutes valid consent and exceptions (e.g., Brown [1993]).

LAW REFORM

Inconsistencies and Problems

  • Highlights include incoherent grading, overlap between offences, and archaic language leading to confusion.

Proposals for Reform

  • Law Commission’s proposals aim for a clear and modern structure in the offence definitions, which will improve clarity and effectiveness. Alternatives may include consolidating offences into general categories without distinguishing injury types.