Non Fatal Offences Against the Person

• There are two common law offences against the person: assault and battery
• The main offences of ABH, GBH and GBH with intent, are contained in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
• This is a very old statute which causes problems for the legal system

Common Assault

• Common law offence
• Summary offence
• Charged under s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
• 6 months imprisonment or fine

Actus Reus:

• An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate and unlawful force being used against them
• It must be an act, an omission is not sufficient
• It only needs to have caused fear, no force need actually be applied
• Needs to be immediate but this interpreted as just imminent - Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) - a woman was being watched by a man in her garden. Her fear was sufficient
• Constanza (1997) the defendant wrote over 800 letters to the victim with the last two containing what the victim believed to be threats
• Ireland (1997) silent telephone calls were considered to be an assault as they put the defendant in immediate contact with the victim

Mens Rea - intention to cause someone to fear the immediate infliction of unlawful force or recklessness as to whether that fear is caused

Common Battery

• Common law offence
• Summary offence
• Charged under s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Actus Reus:

• Application of unlawful force against the victim
• The force can just be a touch Collins v Wilcock (1984) - where police officers tried to question two prostitutes who didn't want to talk. Eventually a police officer put his hand on the back of one of the prostitutes' arm - this was considered to be battery
• Thomas (1985) where touching the bottom of a woman's skirt was sufficient as the court said this was the same as touching the person
• Wood v DPP (2008) where a police officer took hold of Wood's arm to check his identity. It was held that the officer had not arrested Wood, therefore there was a technical assault by the officer and Wood was therefore entitled to struggle and was not guilty of any offence of assault against the police officer
• Battery can also be committed by omission - DPP v Santana Bermudez (2003) where a police officer asked the person she was searching whether or not they had any sharp objects in their pockets. They said no, but when she put her hand in their pocket she pricked herself on a needle. It was held that the defendant's failure to tell her of the needle could amount to the Actus Reus

Mens Rea - an intention to apply unlawful physical force to someone or recklessness as to whether that force was applied - R v Cunningham - test for recklessness is subjective

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

• s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Actus Reus:

• An assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm (so Actus Reus is the same as these offences)
• Miller (1954)
• Husband raped estranged wife and threw her to the ground three times
• She was in a hysterical and nervous condition because of him
• Charged with rape and ABH - relied on marital exception to rape but was found guilty of ABH
• ABH is any harm or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim
  
• T v DPP (2003)
• Defendant chased and kicked victim
• Victim lost consciousness for a brief period
• Loss of consciousness, even momentarily, was held to be actual bodily harm
• DPP v Smith (Michael) (2006)
• Defendant sat on top of his ex and cut her ponytail off
• She sustained no bruises, scratches or cuts
• Cutting the victim's hair can amount to actual bodily harm
• Can be charged where there is any injury - bruising, grazes and scratches are all sufficient
  
• Chanfook (1997)
• Victim locked in room by defendant (the defendant thought the victim had stolen from him and was threatening violence)
• Victim tried to escape through the window and sustained injuries as a result
• Conviction quashed as the victim's panic and following distress was not sufficient for ABH (the prosecution chose that route instead of the physical injuries sustained)
• Psychiatric injury counts, but it must be an identifiable clinical condition

Mens Rea - Considered to be the same as for assault and battery

• Roberts (1971) the defendant was driving a car and made advances to a girl who was sat in the passenger seat. He tried to take her coat off and she feared that he was going to commit a serious assault and so jumped from the car, which was travelling at approximately 30 miles per hour. She was slightly injured from the jump and Roberts was found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm even though he had not intended any injury or realised there was a risk of injury; he had applied unlawful force when he tried to assault her in the car and this satisfied the Mens Rea for a common assault and so he was guilty under s.47
• Savage (1991) the defendant threw a glass of beer over her ex husband's new girlfriend in a pub. The glass accidentally slipped out of her hand and cut the woman. She had intended to throw the beer so had the intention to apply unlawful force

Malicious Wounding/Inflicting Grevious Bodily Harm

• s20 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
• This offence is clearly split in two and the defendant must be charged correctly to ensure conviction
• Wounding = a cut or break in the whole skin
• JCC v Eisenhower (1983)
• Internal bleeding in the eye was not sufficient as skin not broken
• Wood (1830)
• Victim's collar bone broken but skin wasn't so not a wound
• Grievous bodily harm = serious harm following Saunders (1985)
• Burstow (1997)
  
• where the victim of a stalker suffered a severe depressive illness as a result of being stalked. It was held that serious psychiatric injury can be grievous bodily harm
• Bollom (2004)
• Victim was a 17 month old child whose abdomen, leg and arms were bruised. The Court said the severity of the injuries should be assessed in accordance with the victim's age and health
• Dica (2004)
• it was decided that infecting someone with HIV was infliction of GBH

• R v Konzani
• Gave three people HIV after having unprotected sex with them
• Didn't tell any of them that he had HIV
• Claimed in court that they knew
• They didn't, and so couldn't give informed consent

Mens Rea - intention or subjective recklessness as to some harm - must be done maliciously

• Based on Cunningham (1957) which means an intention to do a harm that was done or recklessness as to whether that harm should occur or not (the defendant must foresee it)

Malicious Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent

• s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Actus Reus

• Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm
• Definitions of these are same as for s 20
• Necessary to prove that the defendant's act was a substantial cause of the wound or grievous bodily harm

Mens Rea:

• Intent to do some grievous bodily harm or resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of any person
• If any injury is caused whilst resisting arrest then recklessness can be proved in relation to this injury - Morrison (1989) where a police officer seized the defendant to arrest him and he dived through a window taking her with him. Her face was badly cut by the glass. Recklessness was sufficient for this injury
• Taylor (2009) 
• Defendant stabbed victim in the back of the neck with a knife
• Intention to wound is not enough for the Mens Rea for s18 
• Intention can be direct or oblique
• Nedrick (1986)
• Defendant poured paraffin through victim's letterbox and set it on fire
• A child died in the fire, which was not the defendant's intention
• Decided to be manslaughter, not murder. Substituted as such due to a defective direction given by the judge
• Where there is no direct intent, a judge is entitled to direct a jury that intent may be inferred if the resulting death was virtually certain and the defendant appreciated this virtual certainty (two independent requirements)
• Woollin (1998)
• Defendant threw his 3 month old son at a wall in anger, but claimed that he didn't intend to kill him
• Judge directed jury, applying R v Nedrick that the defendant could be said to have intended the death if there was a substantial risk of death which was appreciated by the defendant
• Conviction unsafe so one of manslaughter substituted
• Judged used the wrong term and so blurred the lines between intention and recklessness
• Direct intention = can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs (e.g I wanna kill my wife so I get a knife, sharpen it, and stab her)
• Oblique intention = more complex. Can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequences of his actions will also bring about another result (e.g I wanna kill my wife so I'm gonna bomb her at work - I know her colleagues will die so I am no less culpable for killing them than killing my wife)

CPS Charging Standards

• The Charging Standards document gives useful examples of the matters that the CPS should consider in deciding the level of offence to be charged
• In deciding whether to charge the defendant with a common assault or with an s.47, it states
• "Where battery results in injury, a choice of charge is available. The Code for Crown Prosecutors recognises that there will be factors which may properly lead to a decision not to prefer or continue with the gravest possible charge. Thus, although any injury that is more than transient or trifling can be classified as actual bodily harm, the appropriate charge...will be contrary to section 39 where the injuries amount to no more than the following:"
• Grazes
• Scratches
• Abrasions
• Minor bruising