How much can you remember?Last lesson we looked at assault. You will see 5 scenarios below... Which of them are assaults and which are not? There are extra marks if you can name the case the scenario is based on!Assault No Assault D D saysup Vevery D texts Vgun it D to “If picks sings and hour for theup a D climbs police wasn’tclaimingface, holds it in V’s that threatening ladder andI’d take in the street, stares they are coming to without saying songs outside V’s out this knife and use kill V.V’shasNeither anything. whilst 12 inonItyou,” been window ithouse every putting since it is hours hisnight. think that they every hand in night started hour. for an loaded his pocket.
Finally...Move the following words to complete the definition of assaultAn act by which... a person unlawful violence immediate and causes another to apprehend intentionally or recklessly
“It has long been established that any touching of another, however slight, may amount to battery” Offence Two: Collins v Willock Battery Act or New omission? situations: Hostility? Indirect force?The application of unlawful force to another
Offence Three:Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm 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 s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Highlight the key words in the definition
“any hurt calculated to interfere with the “no so trivial as to be health or comfort of the victim” or insignificant” R v Chan-Fook 1994 R v Miller 1954 Actual bodily AR MR
R v Chan Fook 1994 Important case! Confirmed in R v Burstow 19971.What does the ‘body’ include?2.What is excluded from psychiatric harm?3.What evidence should the prosecution advance?4.Do they think there will be a lot of cases?5.What is the outcome of the appeal? Do you agree?Why/why not?
Offence Four: Malicious Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm What areWhat is the the twomens rea? Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm types of AR? 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. s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 What is the sentence? How does this compare to s.47?
Meanings... Wound ‘Grievous’ Harm“A cut or break in the “no more and no lesscontinuity of the skin” than serious” R v Saunders 1985, confirmed What about a broken in R v Brown 1994 bone? Wood 1830JCC v Eisenhower 1983 How do we judge ‘serious’? R v Bollom 2004
“Inflict” a particular problem Historical Approach The ‘New’ ApproachR v Lewis 1974 R v Ireland, Burstow 1997 “I am not saying that the words cause and inflict are exactly synonymous. They are not.R v Clarence 1888 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 There was a step forward though in... be absurd to differentiate between sections 18 and 20 in the way argued on behalf ofR v Wilson (Clarence) 1984 Burstow.”
Impact of the broader interpretation Psychiatric Injury Biological GBHR v Burstow 1997 1. What does it mean?1. Is an assault necessary for a conviction under s.20?2. Can you ‘inflict’ a psychiatric 2. Why is this reliant on the injury? broad interpretation? Extension: Can you explain how the HL developed the law from the decision in Wilson (Clarence)?
“Maliciously” This means.... R v Parmenter 1991And therefore means that the test is... R v G&R (confirming R v Cunningham)
Offence Five: Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any Can you spot all the crimes?!means whatsoever wound or Element 1cause any GBH to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful Element 2 apprehension or detainer of any person shall be guilty of Element 3 an offence and be liable on indictment for a sentence of Element 4 up to and including life.s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Types of Intent Direct ObliqueMens Rea... ... with intent“the word ‘maliciously’ adds nothing to the definition.” R v Mowatt 1968
What about the other offence in s.18? R v Morrison 1989 AR MR and...
Alternative Some practicalities... convictions... s.18 s.20 Savage The Charging standards... A practical solution to a complicated law! s.20 s.47 Mondair Examples of Harm Aggravating factors?Common assault & battery s.47 assaultoccasioning ABH s.20 inflicting GBH or woundings.18 causing GBH or wounding with intent
Biological GBH A Particular Problem Historical His conviction for s.20 GBH and s.47 ABH was Approach quashed on appeal... why? R v Clarence Charged with aggravated assault Canada’s Fraudulent transmission of HIV may be an offence Approach (informed consent) R v Cuerrier “I am not saying that the words cause and inflict are Modern exactly synonymous. They are not. What I am saying Development is that in the context of the Act of 1861 one can nowadays quite naturally speak of inflictingR v Ireland, Burstow psychiatric injury.”
Developments in the Law R v Dica 2004Judge LJ “remove some outdatedrestriction against the successful prosecution of those who, knowing that they are suffering HomeworkHIV or some other serious sexual What problems might this incur? Having read disease, recklessly transmit it the article[s]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5282806. through consensual sexual stmintercourse and inflict GBH on a http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_st yle/health/features/article1101221.ece person from whom threat is On whether transmission of a disease concealed.” 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 This was confirmed in should be an offence. R v Konzami 2005