Lecture notes
Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Notes
- Module
- Criminal Law
- Institution
- Newcastle University (NCL)
Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Criminal Law Second Year notes
[Show more]
Content preview
Topic 5: Non-Fatal Offences against the Person and ConsentPart 1- Non Fatal Offences Against The Person
1. Assault
2. Battery
3. Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
4. Malicious Wounding or Infliction of GBH
5. Wounding /Causing GBH with intent
6. Harassment/Stalking
Assault and Battery
• The terms ‘assault’ and ‘common assault’ are sometimes used to describe either an assault
or a battery or both (loose terminology)
Taylor; Little (1992) confirms battery/assault are two separate crimes
1) Assault (also known as Technical Assault)
• Common law offence
• D intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend imminent unlawful force
• No contact don’t have to put person in fear, but simply apprehension of unlawful force
Punishment:
Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that:
• Common assault …. [is a] summary offence and a person guilty [of that offence] shall be
liable to a fine, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both
Actus Reus: D does something that causes V to apprehend imminent force
What can constitute an Assault?
Gestures, Words, Silence:
R v Ireland [1998] AC 147
• D makes series of telephone calls to 3 different women- mostly at night, stays silent or heavy
breathing down phone
• Court had to determine whether this activity could amount to an assault
• Lord Steyn a gesture may amount to an assault but that words can never suffice, is
unrealistic and indefensible. … There is no reason why something said should be incapable
of causing an apprehension of immediate personal violence. … That brings me to the critical
question whether a silent caller may be guilty of an assault. The answer to this question
seems to me to be yes, depending on the facts. As a matter of law the caller may be guilty
of an assault; whether he is or not will depend on the circumstances and in particular on the
impact of the caller’s potentially menacing call or calls on the victim.
Words May also Negate an Assault”
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
, • D places hand on sword hilt and says “if it were not assize time I would not take such
language from you”
• Demonstrating because the court is in session not going to do anything, so negated an
assault
A conditional threat:
Read v Coker (1853)
• V surrounded and threatened if they don’t leave
• V has to do something to avoid an assault
• Words constitute an assault as V apprehends force
Empty threats:
Logdon v DPP [1976]
• D shows V a gun and threatens to take her hostage
• Argues never intended to take her hostage and gun was fake- so would not have been able
to carry out the threat
• Court held – the fact that he did not intend to carry out the threat or was incapable of doing
so provided no defence: all that was needed was that V apprehended force
Apprehension of force:
Logdon v DPP [1976]
• As soon as V apprehends force, the assault is committed
Immediacy
• The V’s apprehension must be of imminent force/harm
• Sense of immediacy must be shown
The Courts developed a generous interpretation of ‘immediacy’ motivated partly by the desire to
provide protection for those suffering from harassment:
Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station [1983]
• Woman sees man outside her bedroom window at night
• Whether this could give rise to a sufficiently imminent fear of the application of force
• Held: V apprehended a sufficiently immediate application of force
• Stretched idea of imminence right outside window is enough, fear of imminent harm can
be established
R v Ireland [1998] AC 147
• Phone calls at night- no idea where this person is
• Does imminence exist here?
• Court argued the women might fear the possibility of immediate personal violenceas no idea
where caller is stretched imminence again
Constanza [1997] 2 Cr App Rep 492
• D made silent telephone calls and sent over 800 letters to the V
• V interpreted the last two letters as clear threats
, • Held: an assault was committed as soon as the V read the letters as there was a fear of
violence at some time not excluding the immediate future
Did these cases stretch the concept of imminence too far?
J. Horder questions the need for a requirement of imminence in psychic assault cases
Mens Rea of Assault:
• D must intentionally cause V to apprehend imminent force or be reckless as to whether
such apprehension be caused
Venna [1976]
• An assault can be committed recklessly, looking for Subjective recklessness
Savage, Parmenter [1992]
• Confirmed subjective reckless approach
SO must show whether intentional OR aware of the risk
2) Battery
• Common law offence
• A battery is the intentional or reckless infliction of unlawful personal force by one person
upon another
Punishment in section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988:
• Battery … [is a] summary offence and a person guilty [of that offence] shall be liable to a
fine, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both
Actus Reus:
• D inflicts unlawful personal force
What constitutes a battery?
Force
Collins v Wilcock [1986]
• When looking at force, everyday contact is excluded
• Consume consent to everyday contact e.g. hustle
Faulkner v Talbot [1981]
• Touching without consent or lawful excuse
• Touching need not be hostile or rude
Thomas (1985)
• Touching the bottom of a girl’s skirt was a battery
Actual touching is not necessary:
Lynsey [1995]
• Spitting at someone was a battery
, Must be Physical Force:
Ireland [1998]
• Psychiatric injury cannot be a battery
Force need not be applied directly:
R v Martin (1881)
• D blocks exits to a theatre and yells fire
• People injured in panic
• Evidently a battery
DPP v K [1990]
• Boy takes acid from Chemistry class to do own experiment
• Someone comes along- so puts acid in hand dryer
• Someone uses dryer and suffers severe burns to face and hands
• “he who pours a dangerous substance into a machine just as truly assaults the next user of
the machine as if he had himself switched the machine on”
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000]
• D punches a woman who was holding a baby- drops the baby
• D found to have committed a battery against the baby
Battery can be carried out via an object:
Fagan v MPC [1969]
• Arguably using car as a weapon when driving over policeman’s foot
Committed by Omission?
Fagan v MPC [1969]
• Cannot commit a battery by a omission- requires a positive act, (inflicting force)
DPP v Santa-Bermudez [2003]
• Searched but knew he had needle in pocket- police was pricked by it
• Courts can be creative to get around fact that you cannot strictly commit a battery by
omission
Hostility?
Faulkner v Talbot [1981]
Brown [1994]
• Lord Jauncey Battery must involve hostility
• BUT possibly meant that hostility was present if act not consent to (better interpretation)
• SO Infliction of force doesn’t have to be hostile if not consented to
Mens Rea of Battery:
• D Intentionally or Recklessly Inflicts Force
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 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 molliebriggs. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
57727 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now