UNIT 3: NON FATAL OFFENCES REVISION NOTES

Non fatals -  UNIT 3

Omissions can only base the actus reus if it occurs when a duty of care arises

Assault – s39 of The criminal Justice Act 1988 Actus reus: Causing the victim to fear immediate use of unlawful force

-          This has to be carried out by an act which can be conduct or words. An omission is NOT sufficient to constitute an assault

-          Words or Silence can also constitute an assault R v Ireland

-          Smith v Chief sup int of woking – fear of immediate force is necessary but immediate does not mean instantaneous – it means imminent meaning about to happen or close. So if it says I’ll get you next week, not really imminent.

-          This was the case in Ireland – he was outside but close.

Book states the relevance of mobile phones because it makes it likely that the caller or texter could be just outside v’s house or relatively near to them.

-          Words can also prevent an assault by indicating it will not occur– Tuberville V Savage

-          Force feared doesn’t need to be serious – e.g. hugging someone

-          The effect on the person is important – the fear must be of immediate force and if D is not afraid there cannot be an assault R v Lamb

Mens rea : Intention or Recklessness as to causing v to fear immediate use of unlawful force

-          Logdon v DPP – mere fear is enough if the defendant foresaw it

-          D must intend or realise their words, act, or conduct could cause V to fear force

Battery s39 - The criminal Justice act 1988

Actus reus: Unlawful application of force Fagan v MPC

- Force can be slight e.g. touching clothing in R v Thomas

- Can be indirect (where d causes the force to be applied but he directly does not apply it with his hand or a weapon) Haystead v CC Deryshire or a continuing act Fagan v MPC

-  D does not need to be present, DPP v K

-Can arise by way of omission but only when D is under a duty to act e.g. D has made a dangerous situation which may lead to force being applied to the victim e.g. perhaps in Miller he caused a fire which caused plaster to fall onto a person below - Unlawful?

-          Not unlawful if it’s in the prevention of a crime of self defence

-          Could be in the correction of a child by a parent. English law recognises that physical chastisement of a child is lawful but only where is does not result in any injury – The Children Act 2004

Mens rea: Intention or recklessness as to the unlawful application of force

ABH s47 of the offences against a person act 1861

Actus Reus: Either that of Assault or battery which occasions (causes) ABH - discomfort or injury.

-          If it hurt it can be seen as ABH R v Miller

-          In R v Chan Fook  Psychiatric harm amounts to ABH but only if it is not “mere emotions of fear, distress, or panic”  or “states of mind” that are not “some identifiable clinical condition”

-          DPP v Smith – cutting off someones hair can amount to ABH

-          Momentary loss of consciousness can also amount to ABH T v DPP

Mens rea

-          D needs to have intention or reckless to either causing assault or battery, not to causing the harm

-          Assault - R v Roberts

-          Battery – R v Savage

S20 GBH

Actus Reus:  Causing the victim grievous bodily harm (really serious harm) DPP v Smith

-          Bollom – tells us that the severity of the injuries should be assessed to the victims age or health (baby had bruising but could be seen more serious  than on an adult of full age and health, or elderly even)

A bruise can amount to GBH if It’s an elderly person or a child “In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of, amongst other things, the effect of the harm on the particular individual.“

-          R v Dica – GBH amounts to HIV

-          Usually ABH can amount to GBH if the injury persists perhaps for “months on end” or for weeks because ABH is not too serious and not really permanent

Mens rea: Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm, R v Parmetor (threw his baby in air and caught him) No need to prove serious harm.

S20 Wounding

AR: Causing a wound, a break in the continuity of the skin C v Eisenhower

MR: Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm R v Parmetor

S18 GBH

Actus reus: Causing the victim grievous bodily harm, (really serious injury) DPP v Smith

Mens rea: Intention to cause really serious harm R v Taylor

S18 wounding

AR: Causing a wound

MR: Intention to cause really serious harm R v Taylor

CPS – decide what offence should usually be charged for certain injuries but these are only guidelines to ensure convictions.

ABH 

·         Minor fracture

·         Psychiatric injury

·         Displaced broken nose

·         Loss of consciousness

·         Loss or breaking of teeth

·         Bruising –extensive then bollom s20

GBH

·         Prolonged psychiatric injury

·         Injury that causes substantial loss of blood

·         Broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs

·         Broken or displaced bones or limbs fractured skull

·         Permanent loss of sensory function or disability