This is a useful study sheet for Unit 2 of Criminal Law Module, on Assaults. It contains all the important information for this Unit in 5 pages, alongside exam structure and helpful tips. I used this in my open-book exam to attain a distinction.
Outcomes
Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm – s20 Offences Against Wounding or causing GBH with intent = s18 OAPA Act 1861
the Person Act 1861
1) Demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the definitions of bothMax. common law and
sentence is lifestatutory assaultsand
imprisonment, anditunderstand howoffence
is an indictable to apply–
Offencethese to afactual
carries scenariosof 5 years’ imprisonment (same as
max. sentence it can only be tried in the Crown Court before a judge and jury
2) even
s47, Make sound
though judgements
it is a more seriousas tooffence.
how theIn defence
practiceofthough,
consent operates to absolve a defendant from liability for assault in certain
sentences situations; and heavier
are usually when the fordefence
s20 thanoffor
self-defence
s47) and ismay 4 different
be available to
triable ways
an accused of committing a s18 offence:
person
3) way
either Locate and make critical use of judgements to increase the ability to participate in academic debate on a controversial area of the
1) Unlawfully + maliciously causing GBH with intent to cause
criminal law
AR4) Research and review academic opinion to enable you to critically evaluate theGBH; current law on the defence of consent
2) Unlawfully + maliciously wounding with intent to cause
(1) Unlawfully GBH;
Simple assault Physical3) assault/battery
Unlawfully + maliciously causing GBH with intent to resist
Means the act of wounding/inflicting GBH was not done with any or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any
Defined
lawfulasjustification
any act which (R v(3) intentionally
Horwood) or recklessly,
Wounding/GBH causesin self-
inflicted AR person;
another
defence person
or into (1) apprehend
defence of another (2)would
immediate and unlawful personal
be lawful
force (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner) Infliction ofUnlawfully
4) + maliciously
unlawful personal forcewounding with intent to resist or
on the victim
(2) Wound prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person
AR Does not have to be a serious attack, any unlawful touching (with the
Requires both layers of the skin to be broken (Moriarty v Brookes) A AR
appropriate MR) will suffice. No injury is required
(1) Apprehend
scratch that draws blood will suffice. 2 different of
ways to commit the AR –(Check other assaults for an
Application force can be indirect e.g. deliberately placing
AR Bruising/internal
only requires thebleeding
victim toare apprehend the force.
not wounds, Doeshow
no matter not have to
serious definitions of both):
obstacle behind a door so victim trips over it (DPP v K) or punching
fearthe
it, bleeding,
as long asas heskin
thinks
hashenotis been
aboutbroken
to be unlawfully touched
(JJC (a Minor) v the mother,
1. Tocausing
woundher to drop the baby (Haystead v Chief
Eisenhower), although severe internal bleeding could amount to Constable of Derbyshire)
2. To cause GBH to a person
NoGBHviolence/touching is necessary. It is of no consequence whether or
not the unlawful touching results in injury/harm MR
MR
(3) Grievous bodily harm
Words alone can amount to assault (R v Ireland) To intentionally
Intention or recklessly
– recklessness inflict
is not the unlawful
enough. Offence force
which has an
Means ‘really serious harm’ (DPP v Smith) ‘ulterior intent’. 2 parts to the MR:
A silent telephone call could be an assault ‘depending on the facts’ (R
Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm – s47 Offences Against the
v Ireland) – presumably,
Psychiatric problems could1 silent call would
amount prob
to GBH not be
if they enough
were severebut a
Person1.ActThe1861 D must ‘maliciously’ wound or cause GBH.
pattern
enough would(R vbe
Burstow) ‘Maliciously’ means intention or recklessness as to some
Offence carries
bodily a max.
harm.sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment and is
(2) (4)Immediate
Inflict
triable2.either way (magistrates’
Ulterior intent – D must court/Crown
also intendCourt)
either:
TheNo threat
needmust be of immediate
for direct/indirect unlawfulofpersonal
application force toforce
the body; there A) GBH
AR
could be an infliction of GBH without the legal equivalent of B) To resist/prevent the lawful apprehension/detainer of any
It isphysical/simple
not enough that the victim
assault beingimmediately
committed (Rapprehends
v Burstow)that the person
(1) An assault
unlawful personal force may occur; the victim must apprehend that
(2) Which occasions (i.e. causes)
theMR unlawful personal force may occur immediately. Realising Prosecution must always establish one of these ulterior intents – if it
(3) Actual bodily harm
straightaway that someone might hit you in the future is not enough can be shown, the prosecution have necessarily also established
‘Maliciously’
to establish meansreus
the actus intention or recklessness
of simple assault (R v Cunningham) that the
Means anyGBH was caused
hurt/injury maliciously.
calculated to interfere with the health or
D needthat
onlythe
intend/be reckless comfort of the victim (R v Miller) Harm does not have to be serious –
Sufficient victim fears thatas to SOME
force couldbodily harm (ABH). (R v
occur immediately One situation where recklessness (as to causing some bodily
bruising, scratch or swelling would suffice
Burstow)
Not necessary to prove that the D foresaw really serious harm (GBH) harm/worse) can be an adequate MR, is where the D may have only
been reckless
Capable as to causing
of including some
psychiatric bodily
injury (R vharm, butRalso
Ireland; had the –
v ChanFook)
If the
Or victim hadnature
fearedofthat
thethe defendant could strike at(Rany time, R ulterioritintent
the exact harm that in fact occurred v Savage; though needstotoresist/prevent arrest
be a recognisable clinical condition (e.g. anxiety
that would be
v Parmenter)sufficient to establish the actus reus of assault
neurosis or reactive depression). Strong emotions e.g. rage, extreme
Conditional threats also satisfy the ‘immediate’ force requirement fear, panic, do not suffice. Medical evidence is needed to establish
(Read v Coker) psychiatric injury.
MR MR
What is a valid consent?
(3) Intention or recklessness Intention or recklessness as to the assault only (R v Savage; R v
Law does not specify a particular age or degree of mental disability/handicap Parmenter)
which precludes someone giving valid consent
D must intend to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful
It is a question
personal force, or of
befact in each
reckless case.
as to E.g. a such
whether child’sapprehension
ability to consent Prosecution
be is a q of fact. The qdid not havethe
is whether to prove thatsufficient
child has the D intended or was
intelligence +
understanding
caused (R v Venna) to give consent. reckless as to the harm
There is valid
Recklessness testconsent only ifDXmust
= subjective. knows the identity
foresee ofthat
the risk the the
D and the natureThus
victim and –quality
element of causing
of the act – R ABH is relevant
v Tabassum; R vonly
Dica;toRthe AR of the
v Konzani
would apprehend…and go on to take that risk (R v Spratt) offence, not the MR, and is an element of strict liability
R v Tabassum = Victims thought they were consenting to breast examinations by a medically qualified person for medical purposes. They were
not and thus
Commission did notassault,
of simple know the ‘quality’
contrary of the actlaw and s29 of the
to common
Criminal Justice Act 1988 – carries a maximum sentence of 6 months’
R v Dica (c.f. R v Clarence) = Consent and sexual infections. Just because victims had consented to sex with the D, did not mean they had
imprisonment
consented to any risk of infection from that sexual intercourse (Clarence). Q of whether the victims had consented was a question of fact for
the jury to decide. Although the immediate case involved a HIV scenario, the judgement given were not confined to that disease (Judge LJ)
R v Konzani (c.f. R v Clarence) = None of the complainants had consented to the risk of contracting the HIV. There was no informed consent.
Critical distinction between taking a risk of the various, potentially adverse and possibly problematic consequences of sex, and giving an
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller leila01. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.88. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
