Assault

1. Assault • Definition - Ireland – D intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. Summary only offence. Maximum sentence – 6 months imprisonment and/or fine • What was the act? • Constanza– written words enough • Ireland – words are enough • Ireland – Silence can amount to an assault • Tuberville v Savage– words can prevent an assault • Did V apprehend? • Don’t need fear – just apprehension – expectation or anticipation • If V doesn’t apprehend immediate force, assault has not been committed – Lamb • Doesn’t matter if D made his threat as a joke if V believed him – Logdon • Immediate? • Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station - immediate does not need to be instantaneous • Unlawful violence? • V does not need to apprehend any injury, pain or harm. Force apprehended can be a mere touch, provided it is unwanted • Was there intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence: • Savage- Intention or recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence; or • Cunningham recklessness applies – D must realise that his acts or words could cause V to apprehend violence – must foresee the risk and take it anyway

2. Battery • Definition - Ireland – AR = Application of unlawful physical force to another. Summary only offence. Maximum sentence – 6 months imprisonment and/or fine • Was there force? • Collins v Willcock– “any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to battery” • Thomas– touching clothes amounted to battery • Was the force unlawful? • Force is lawful if V consents (e.g. sport, medical procedures) • Everyday contact is lawful - Collins v Willcock– all those who move about society have given implied consent to the physical contacts of ordinary life as they have exposed themselves to bodily contact • (is there any issue with indirect battery? DPP v K – battery can be indirect – schoolboy put acid in a hot air drier and another pupil was injured) • Did D intend or was he subjectively reckless to apply force? • Venna– MR = Intent or subjective recklessness to apply force to another

3. S.47 Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm • Definition - S.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. Either way offence • Was there an assault (assault or battery)? (explain and apply this first) • Is there causation? The assault or battery must occasion the harm: • Look for causation issues – factual causation (“but for”), legal causation (operating and substantial cause), NAI by 3rd party or V, thin skull rule • Is there actual bodily harm? • Miller – “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim” but must be more than “transient or trifling” • Chan Fook– harm must be more than trivial • Chan Fook– harm includes psychiatric harm but must be an identifiable clinical condition • Is there mensrea for either assault or battery?: • Roberts – only need mensrea for the assault or battery – D does not need to intend or foresee the risk of any harm • Savage– D threw beer at another girl, glass slipped, cutting the victim. Throwing of beer was battery (applying unlawful force) and she intended to throw it so had MR for battery – liable for S.47

4. S.20 Inflicting Wounding or Grievous Bodily Harm • Definition - S.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - “Unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm”. Either way offence. Maximum sentence – 5 years’ imprisonment • Is there either: • An unlawful wounding; or • Wounding = both layers of skin are broken, usually an open wound causing blood loss • JCC v Eisenhower– wound requires a “break in the continuity of the skin”- internal bleeding not sufficient • An unlawful infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm? • Saunders– GBH meandserious harm • Burstow– serious psychiatric harm could be GBH • Bollom– effect on the victim can affect the charge (if vulnerable – elderly, young child, disabled) • Brown and Stratton - If V suffers minor injuries which, taken as a whole amount to serious harm, this will constitute GBH • Did D intend to inflict some harm or was he subjectively reckless as to whether such harm would occur? • Cunningham - Maliciously has been interpreted to mean D must intend to inflict the harm or be subjectively reckless as to whether such harm will occur • Mowatt- Only need MR for some harm, not serious harm (do not need MR for the wound or GBH) Parmenter– D not liable for S.20 as he had not foreseen the risk of any harm – D must foresee that he might cause some harm

5. S.18 Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent • Definition - S.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - “Unlawfully and maliciouslywound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person”. Indictable only. Maximum sentence – life imprisonment • Is there either: • An unlawful wounding; or • Same as S.20 (see previous slide) • An unlawful infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm? • Same as S.20 (see previous slide) • Did D intend to Cause serious harm • Need intent, recklessness not enough • Saunders – D must intend serious harm (compared to some harm in S.20)