Here are two paragraphs outlining arguments on whether transmission of a disease should or should not be an offence: Arguments it should not be an offence: Making transmission of a disease a criminal offence could discourage people from getting tested and seeking treatment for fear of prosecution. It may be difficult to prove intent to transmit in many cases and could criminalize behavior that was not deliberately harmful. There are also concerns about further stigmatizing people living with diseases. Public health approaches that encourage openness, testing and treatment may be more effective at reducing transmission than criminal penalties. Arguments it should be an offence: Failing to disclose a serious infectious disease before engaging in behavior that could transmit it violates the other person's autonomy and right to informed consent.

1. Non-Fatal
Offences
G153 Criminal Law
2010-11

2. 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.

3. Finally...
Move the following words to complete the definition of assault
An act by which...
a person unlawful violence
immediate and causes another
to apprehend
intentionally or recklessly

4. “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

5. 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

6. “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

7. R v Chan Fook 1994
Important case! Confirmed in R v Burstow 1997
1.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?

8. Offence Four:
Malicious Wounding or inflicting
grievous bodily harm
What are
What is the the two
mens 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?

9. Meanings...
Wound ‘Grievous’ Harm
“A cut or break in the
“no more and no less
continuity of the skin”
than serious”
R v Saunders 1985, confirmed
What about a broken in R v Brown 1994
bone?
Wood 1830
JCC v Eisenhower 1983
How do we judge
‘serious’?
R v Bollom 2004

10. “Inflict”
a particular problem
Historical Approach The ‘New’ Approach
R 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 of
R v Wilson (Clarence) 1984 Burstow.”

11. Impact of the broader interpretation
Psychiatric Injury Biological GBH
R 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)?

12. “Maliciously”
This means....
R v Parmenter 1991
And therefore means that the
test is...
R v G&R (confirming R v
Cunningham)

13. 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 1
cause 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

14. Types of Intent
Direct Oblique
Mens Rea...
... with intent
“the word ‘maliciously’
adds nothing to the
definition.”
R v Mowatt 1968

15. What about the other offence in s.18?
R v Morrison 1989
AR
MR
and...

16. 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 assault
occasioning ABH
s.20 inflicting
GBH or
wounding
s.18 causing GBH
or wounding
with intent

17. 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 inflicting
R v Ireland, Burstow psychiatric injury.”

18. Developments in the Law
R v Dica 2004
Judge LJ “remove some outdated
restriction against the successful
prosecution of those who,
knowing that they are suffering Homework
HIV 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 stm
intercourse 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