   ASSAULT – s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988   BATTERY – s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988   ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODIL...
   TAKEN TOGETHER COME UNDER HEADING    “COMMON ASSAULT”   ORIGINALLY COMMON LAW OFFENCES   NOW CHARGED UNDER s39 CRIMI...
   CLEAR DEFINITION SET OUT IN FAGAN v.    METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER    (1969)    ◦ "an assault is committed where...
   NEED NOT BE IN FEAR BUT MUST BE AWARE    THEY ARE ABOUT TO BE SUBJECTED TO    VIOLENCE – R v. LAMB (1967)   DOESN’T M...
   THREAT OF FUTURE VIOLENCE WILL NOT    AMOUNT TO ASSAULT, BUT THE COURTS    HAVE BECOME LESS STRICT ON THIS POINT –    ...
   IF YOU HAVE A LAWFUL EXCUSE THERE WILL    BE NO ASSAULT E.G.    ◦ REASONABLE PUNISHMENT OF A CHILD (s58      CHILDREN ...
   ONLY NEED TO APPREHEND THE LEVEL OF    FORCE REQUIRED FOR A BATTERY – ANY    TOUCHING WILL BE ENOUGH
   INTENTIONAL   RECKLESS – R v. PARMENTER (1991)    SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS TEST APPLIES (I.E.    CUNNINGHAM RECKLESSNE...
   CLEAR DEFINITION IN R v. IRELAND (1997)    ◦ "unlawful application of force by the defendant      upon the victim“   ...
   APPLICATION OF FORCE NEED NOT BE DIRECT    – DPP v. K (1990), FAGAN (1969)
   IF YOU HAVE A LAWFUL EXCUSE THERE WILL BE    NO ASSAULT E.G.    ◦ REASONABLE PUNISHMENT OF A CHILD (s58 CHILDREN      ...
   ANY TOUCHING WILL DO – FAULKNER v.    TALBOT (1981)   LORD LANE:    ◦ “any intentional [or reckless] touching of anot...
   INTENTIONAL   RECKLESS – AGAIN, SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS    APPLIES (PARMENTER)
   ASSAULT    ◦   APPREHEND    ◦   IMMEDIATE    ◦   UNLAWFUL    ◦   PHYSICAL VIOLENCE    ◦   INTENTION OR CUNNINGHAM RECK...
Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource

2,137
-1

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,137
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource

  1. 1.  ASSAULT – s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 BATTERY – s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM (ABH) – s47 OAPA 1861 GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM (GBH) OR WOUNDING – s20 OAPA 1861 GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM (GBH) OR WOUNDING WITH INTENT OR INTENT TO RESIST ARREST/PREVENT LAWFUL ARREST OF ANOTHER – s18 OAPA 1861
  2. 2.  TAKEN TOGETHER COME UNDER HEADING “COMMON ASSAULT” ORIGINALLY COMMON LAW OFFENCES NOW CHARGED UNDER s39 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988 – SUMMARY OFFENCES NO STATUTORY DEFINITION CPS CODE - grazes; scratches; abrasions; minor bruising; swellings; reddening of the skin; superficial cuts; or a "black eye".
  3. 3.  CLEAR DEFINITION SET OUT IN FAGAN v. METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER (1969) ◦ "an assault is committed where the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence” AR – APPREHEND IMMEDIATE UNLAWFUL PERSONAL VIOLENCE
  4. 4.  NEED NOT BE IN FEAR BUT MUST BE AWARE THEY ARE ABOUT TO BE SUBJECTED TO VIOLENCE – R v. LAMB (1967) DOESN’T MATTER THAT THERE IS NO REAL DANGER OF VIOLENCE – LOGDON v. DPP (1976) WORDS CAN CONSTITUTE ASSAULT – R v. CONSTANZA (1997) SILENCE CAN EVEN CONSTITUTE ASSAULT – R v. IRELAND (1997)
  5. 5.  THREAT OF FUTURE VIOLENCE WILL NOT AMOUNT TO ASSAULT, BUT THE COURTS HAVE BECOME LESS STRICT ON THIS POINT – SMITH v. CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WOKING (1983), CONSTANZA
  6. 6.  IF YOU HAVE A LAWFUL EXCUSE THERE WILL BE NO ASSAULT E.G. ◦ REASONABLE PUNISHMENT OF A CHILD (s58 CHILDREN ACT 2004) ◦ WHERE THE VICTIM CONSENTS ◦ WHERE THE DEFENDANT ACTS IN SELF DEFENCE
  7. 7.  ONLY NEED TO APPREHEND THE LEVEL OF FORCE REQUIRED FOR A BATTERY – ANY TOUCHING WILL BE ENOUGH
  8. 8.  INTENTIONAL RECKLESS – R v. PARMENTER (1991) SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS TEST APPLIES (I.E. CUNNINGHAM RECKLESSNESS) ◦ DID THE DEFENDANT CONSCIOUSLY TAKE AN UNJUSTIFED RISK?
  9. 9.  CLEAR DEFINITION IN R v. IRELAND (1997) ◦ "unlawful application of force by the defendant upon the victim“ AR – APPLICATION UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL FORCE
  10. 10.  APPLICATION OF FORCE NEED NOT BE DIRECT – DPP v. K (1990), FAGAN (1969)
  11. 11.  IF YOU HAVE A LAWFUL EXCUSE THERE WILL BE NO ASSAULT E.G. ◦ REASONABLE PUNISHMENT OF A CHILD (s58 CHILDREN ACT 2004) ◦ WHERE THE VICTIM CONSENTS ◦ WHERE THE DEFENDANT ACTS IN SELF DEFENCE CONSENT TO BATTERY – GOFF LJ IN COLLINS v. WILCOCK (1984) – ◦ implied consent exists where there is jostling in crowded places, handshakes, back slapping, tapping to gain attention provided no more force was used than is reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
  12. 12.  ANY TOUCHING WILL DO – FAULKNER v. TALBOT (1981) LORD LANE: ◦ “any intentional [or reckless] touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. It need not necessarily be hostile, rude, or aggressive”.
  13. 13.  INTENTIONAL RECKLESS – AGAIN, SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS APPLIES (PARMENTER)
  14. 14.  ASSAULT ◦ APPREHEND ◦ IMMEDIATE ◦ UNLAWFUL ◦ PHYSICAL VIOLENCE ◦ INTENTION OR CUNNINGHAM RECKLESS BATTERY ◦ APPLICATION ◦ UNLAWFUL ◦ PHYSICAL FORCE ◦ INTENTION OR CUNNINGHAM RECKLESS
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×