Non fatal offences 2010-11


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Non fatal offences 2010-11

  1. 1. Non-Fatal Offences<br />G153 Criminal Law <br />2010-11<br />
  2. 2. How much can you remember?<br />Last lesson we looked at assault. You will see 5 scenarios below... Which of them are assaults and which are not?<br />There are extra marks if you can name the case the scenario is based on!<br />Assault<br />No Assault<br />D picks up gun and holds it in V’s face, without saying anything. Neither think that it is loaded<br />D texts V every hour claiming that they are coming to kill V. It has been 12 hours since they started<br />D sings threatening songs outside V’s house every night for an hour. <br />D says to V “If it wasn’t for the police in the street, I’d take out this knife and use it on you,” whilst putting his hand in his pocket.<br />D climbs up a ladder and stares in V’s window every night.<br />
  3. 3. Finally... Move the following words to complete the definition of assault<br />An act by which...<br />unlawful violence<br />a person<br />immediate and<br />another<br />causes<br />to apprehend<br />intentionally or recklessly<br />
  4. 4. “It has long been established that any touching of another, however slight, may amount to battery”<br />Collins v Willock<br />Offence Two:Battery<br />Act or omission?<br />New situations:<br />Hostility?<br />Indirect force?<br />The application of unlawful force to another<br />
  5. 5. Offence Three:Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm<br />The offence is omitted when a person assaults another, thereby causing actual bodily harm, which is an either way offence and carries a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine not exceeding the statutory maximum<br />s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861<br />Highlight the key words in the definition<br />
  6. 6. “any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim”<br />R v Miller 1954<br />“no so trivial as to be insignificant”<br />R v Chan-Fook 1994<br />or<br />Actual bodily<br />AR<br />MR<br />
  7. 7. R v Chan Fook 1994<br />Important case! Confirmed in R v Burstow 1997<br />What does the ‘body’ include?<br />What is excluded from psychiatric harm?<br />What evidence should the prosecution advance?<br />Do they think there will be a lot of cases?<br />What is the outcome of the appeal? Do you agree? Why/why not?<br />
  8. 8. Offence Four:Malicious Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm<br />What are the two types of AR?<br />What is the mensrea?<br />Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without a weapon or instruments shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years.<br />s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861<br />What is the sentence? How does this compare to s.47?<br />
  9. 9. Meanings...<br />Wound<br />‘Grievous’ Harm<br />“A cut or break in the continuity of the skin”<br />“no more and no less than serious”<br />R v Saunders 1985, confirmed in R v Brown 1994<br />What about a broken bone? <br />Wood 1830<br />JCC v Eisenhower 1983<br />How do we judge ‘serious’?<br />R v Bollom 2004<br />
  10. 10. R v Ireland, Burstow 1997<br />“I am not saying that the words cause and inflict are exactly synonymous. They are not. What I am saying is that in the context of the Act of 1861 one can nowadays quite naturally speak of inflicting psychiatric injury. Moreover, there is internal contextual support in the statute for this view. It would be absurd to differentiate between sections 18 and 20 in the way argued on behalf of Burstow.”<br />R v Lewis 1974<br />R v Clarence 1888<br />There was a step forward though in...<br />R v Wilson (Clarence) 1984<br />“Inflict” a particular problem<br />Historical Approach<br />The ‘New’ Approach<br />
  11. 11. Impact of the broader interpretation<br />Psychiatric Injury<br />Biological GBH<br />R v Burstow 1997<br />What does it mean?<br />Why is this reliant on the broad interpretation?<br />Is an assault necessary for a conviction under s.20?<br />Can you ‘inflict’ a psychiatric injury?<br />Extension:<br />Can you explain how the HL developed the law from the decision in Wilson (Clarence)?<br />
  12. 12. “Maliciously”<br />This means....<br />And therefore means that the test is...<br />R v G&R (confirmingR v Cunningham)<br />R v Parmenter 1991<br />
  13. 13. Offence Five: Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent<br />Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any GBH to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on indictment for a sentence of up to and including life.<br />s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861<br />Can you spot all the crimes?!<br />
  14. 14. Types of Intent<br />Direct<br />Oblique<br />Mens Rea...... with intent<br />“the word ‘maliciously’ adds nothing to the definition.”<br />R v Mowatt 1968<br />
  15. 15. What about the other offence in s.18?<br />R v Morrison 1989<br />
  16. 16. Alternative convictions...<br />s.18  s.20<br />Savage<br />s.20  s.47<br />Mondair<br />Some practicalities...<br />The Charging standards... <br />A practical solution to a complicated law!<br />
  17. 17. Biological GBHA Particular Problem<br />His conviction for s.20 GBH and s.47 ABH was quashed on appeal... why?<br />Historical Approach<br />Canada’s Approach<br />Modern Development<br />R v Clarence<br />R v Cuerrier<br />R v Ireland, Burstow<br />Charged with aggravated assault<br />Fraudulent transmission of HIV may be an offence<br />(informed consent)<br />“I am not saying that the words cause and inflict are exactly synonymous. They are not. What I am saying is that in the context of the Act of 1861 one can nowadays quite naturally speak of inflicting psychiatric injury.”<br />
  18. 18. Developments in the Law<br />R v Dica 2004<br />Judge LJ “remove some outdated restriction against the successful prosecution of those who, knowing that they are suffering HIV or some other serious sexual disease, recklessly transmit it through consensual sexual intercourse and inflict GBH on a person from whom threat is concealed.”<br />Homework<br />What problems might this incur? Having read the article[s]:<br /><br /><br />On whether transmission of a disease should be an offence, complete two paragraphs below. The first, outlining the arguments that it should not be an offence, and the second outlining why it should be an offence. <br />This was confirmed in <br />R v Konzami 2005<br />