Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource

 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

 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".

 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

 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)

 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

 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

 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 RECKLESSNESS) ◦ DID THE DEFENDANT CONSCIOUSLY TAKE AN UNJUSTIFED RISK?

 CLEAR DEFINITION IN R v. IRELAND (1997) ◦ "unlawful application of force by the defendant upon the victim“ AR – APPLICATION UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL FORCE

 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 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.

 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”.

 INTENTIONAL RECKLESS – AGAIN, SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS APPLIES (PARMENTER)

 ASSAULT ◦ APPREHEND ◦ IMMEDIATE ◦ UNLAWFUL ◦ PHYSICAL VIOLENCE ◦ INTENTION OR CUNNINGHAM RECKLESS BATTERY ◦ APPLICATION ◦ UNLAWFUL ◦ PHYSICAL FORCE ◦ INTENTION OR CUNNINGHAM RECKLESS

Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource

by lawexchange.co.uk on Jan 22, 2012

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 372

Statistics

Law-Exchange.co.uk Shared Resource — Presentation Transcript