Criminal Law: Offences Against the Person I (Non-fatal, non-sexual offences against the person)
Criminal Law: Offences Against the Person I
Learning Outcomes and Recommended Reading
Goals for Lecture: By the end of this lecture, students should be able to:
Identify the meaning of "non-fatal, non-sexual offences against the person".
Understand the relationship between these offences and other categories of crimes.
Explain the requirements of specific offences:
Assault (including aggravations)
Reckless injury
Reckless endangerment
Threats
Extortion
Outline the operation of specific defences related to assault.
Recommended Reading:
T H Jones and I Taggart, Criminal Law (7th edn, 2018), Chapter 9 (pages 193-211, 217-227, and 265-268).
Non-fatal, Non-sexual Offences Against the Person
Definition of Offences Against the Person:
An offence causing harm or risk of harm to an individual.
Not limited to physical harm; includes:
Assault
Reckless injury
Threats
Extortion
Characteristics:
Non-fatal: Excludes homicide offences (murder, culpable homicide).
Non-sexual: Excludes sexual offences (rape, sexual assault, non-consensual distribution of intimate images, voyeurism, sexual exposure).
Recap of Offences
Basic Principles:
All offences must establish actus reus and mens rea for criminal liability.
Actus reus: The conduct element; voluntary action by the accused.
Causation Requirement: For result crimes, proof of causation is necessary (the conduct must have caused a particular result).
Mens rea: The mental element; the required mental state (intention, recklessness, negligence, or no fault).
Variability of mens rea: Changes according to the offence type.
Assault
Definition of Assault:
Primary non-fatal, non-sexual offence against the person.
Defined as a broad offence but can differ based on aggravations.
Classified as a conduct crime.
Actus Reus of Assault
Understanding:
Defined as an attack on a person, which may be:
Direct: Physical assault.
Indirect: Involving third parties or objects.
Threatening conduct: Causes fear without physical contact.
No requirement to produce injury.
Key cases illustrating this concept include:
Direct Attacks:
Aitken v Wood, 1921 JC 84
Dewar v HM Advocate, [2021] HCJAC 28
Indirect Attacks:
Kay v Allan, 1978 S.C.C.R. Supp. 188
Quinn v Lees, 1994 SCCR 159
Fear-Inducing Attacks:
Atkinson v HM Advocate, 1987 SCCR 534
Gilmour v McGlennan, 1993 S.C.C.R. 837
Mens Rea of Assault
Intent: Assault is a crime of intention, requiring "evil intent".
Cannot be committed unintentionally or recklessly.
Doctrine of Transferred Intent:
Confirmed in Roberts v Hamilton, 1989 SLT 399.
Key quotes define mens rea:
Hume: Intent to hurt or wound.
HMA v Phipps, 1905: Evil intention or intent to bodily injury.
Lord Advocate’s Reference (No 2 of 1992): Motive is irrelevant to mens rea.
Aggravated Assaults
Nature of Aggravation:
Refers to the labelling of the offence impacting sentencing.
Principle of fair labelling: Offence names must capture the offence's conduct.
Factors affecting seriousness include:
Conduct of the accused
Result of the accused’s conduct
Intention of the accused
Common Law Examples of Aggravated Assaults
Intention-based Aggravation: E.g., intent to ravish (James Gibb, 1836).
Perpetration Mode: E.g., use of a weapon (Campbell v HMA, 1986).
Result-based Aggravation: E.g., assault causing severe injury (Kirkwood v HMA, 1939).
Causation: Must be proven when an aggravation requires a specific result.
Statutory Aggravations
Safety-related crimes that include prejudicial motives, such as:
Racism (Crime and Disorder Act 1998)
Religious prejudice (Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003)
Disability-related offences (Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) Act 2009)
Sexual orientation and gender identity (Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) Act 2009)
Domestic abuse-related assaults (Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016)
Serious organised crime connections (Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010)
Defences to Assault
Relevance of Defences:
Even when actus reus and mens rea are established, defences may apply, barring criminal liability.
General Defences:
Self-defence
Mental disorder
Automatism
Specific Defences to Assault:
Consent: Considered within the context of sports; exceptions noted from Lord Advocate’s Reference (No.2 of 1992) and Smart v HMA, 1975.
Medical Examination: Related case Hussain v Houston, 1995.
Lawful Force: Referenced in cases like Codona v Cardle, 1989 and Wightman v Lees, 2000.
Self-defence and Provocation: Discussed in more detail in subsequent modules.
Abolishment of Certain Defences:
Reasonable chastisement of children abolished by Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Act 2019.
Non-intentional Offences
Recklessly Causing Injury
Definition: Unintentional but reckless action causing injury.
Leading Case: HMA v Harris, 1993 SLT 963.
Established two common law offences: recklessly causing injury and causing danger to others.
Significance: Performance of reckless conduct that leads to injury is a crime; this differs from mere recklessness that does not result in harm.
Reckless Endangerment
Understanding Reckless Endangerment:
Confirmed in HMA v Harris, entailing conduct that endangers without showing injury.
Historic Authority: Refers to conduct dangerous to individuals or the public.
Case Examples:
Throwing/dropping objects from heights (W v HMA, 1982 SLT 420).
Reckless conduct such as burning (MacPhail v Clark, 1982).
Organizing unsafe events (Normand v Robinson, 1994).
Mens Rea Requirement
Disregard for Consequences: Required to establish mens rea.
Refer to cosmic examples such as Cameron v Maguire, 1999.
Examples of Reckless Endangerment
Needles/Sharps Cases: E.g., Kimmins v Normand, Donaldson v Normand.
Supply of Drugs Cases: E.g., Khaliq v HM Advocate, Ulhaq v HM Advocate.
Contemporary Example: HM Advocate v Lindsay, 2020, involving reckless behaviour during a pandemic.
Threats and Extortion
Threats
Nature of Threats:
Require no physical attack, but can still be criminal.
Historical case: James Miller defined threats' basis.
Types of Threats:
Verbal or written, with specific classifications like death threats.
Criminally actionable without intent to follow through.
Statutory Considerations:
Statutory provisions for causing fear and alarm under s.38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.
Extortion
Definition of Extortion:
Characterized by a demand backed by a threat.
Historic context: James Miller defined extortion.
Paradoxical Nature:
Both demand and threat can be legal, but their combination constitutes a crime.
Characteristics of Threats and Demands in Extortion Under Scots Law
Types of Threat:
Inflicting physical injury (Fielding v HM Advocate, 1959).
Disclosing personal information (Hopes and Lavery v HM Advocate, 1960).
Car clamping as a unique case (Black v Carmichael, 1992).
Demands:
Typically financial but not limited to monetary demands (Rae v Donnelly, 1982).
Lawful demands in lawful procedures are not extortionate (Carmichael v Black, Silverstein v HM Advocate).
Other Non-fatal, Non-sexual Offences Against the Person
Additional Offences Covered:
Not exhaustive; further offences include:
Assaulting or impeding police officers (Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012).
Assaulting emergency service workers (Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005).
Assaulting retail workers (Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021).
Stalking and domestic abuse offences, which will be examined in later modules.
Robbery, deemed theft by force, will be discussed in conjunction with theft.
Summary and Closing Remarks
Next Week (Week 6): Seminars on prior content and upcoming lectures on homicide offences.
Assignment Due: February 24 for BA students; inquiries can be made via email to Robbie.Reid@stir.ac.uk.