Summary
Summary Non-Fatal Offences GDL Distinction Style Notes
- Module
- Criminal Law
Distinction style notes for Non-Fatal offences
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON-FIRSTLY- Look at the level of injury
-Look at the mental state required for the offence (not the mental state of the
defendant)
-Once offence established consider whether there are any potential defences
-Note: the outcome is often not what the defendant intended- not their aim / goal /
purpose.
NOTE: you can have an omission for the AR- if you fail to rectify something and it could
lead to harm, and you chose to do it anyway (e.g. because someone deserves it).
ASSAULT -
Fagan v MPC, James J: ‘an assault is any act that causes another person to
apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’.
Basic intent crime: intention or recklessness will suffice to make out the MR.
ACTUS REUS
1. ANY ACT R v Wilson: words can be an act – ‘get out the knives’.
R v Ireland; Burstow: held that words can be an act – involved
silent and abusive phone calls.
Lord Stein: ‘words can suffice- a thing said is also a thing
done. There is no reason why something said is not capable of
causing an immediate apprehension of violence. Words can
convey a message, one that is arguably more directed than
silence’.
2. CAUSES ANOTHER Apprehend = understand / perceive that immediate and
PERSON TO unlawful personal violence will be suffered- it doesn’t mean fear
APPREHEND (possible to understand you are going to get hit without being
PERSONAL frightened).
VIOLENCE
R v Lamb: D must cause V to believe that he can and he will
carry out the threat of personal violence
D and V were playing with a gun- both assumed trigger would not
go off- D pulled trigger and V was killed- unlawful act not made
out- V did not apprehend any violence because he did not think
there was any chance of him being shot.
Logdon v DPP: as long as V apprehends the threat, it is
irrelevant that D does not have the means to carry out the
, threat
D made threats to V with a replica gun- couldn’t have harmed V- V
still apprehended violence because they did not know the gun was
a replica- it was irrelevant D could not have carried it out.
Smith v Leech Brain: it does not matter that V is unusually
sensitive in perceiving threats- thin skull rule
You must take your victim as you find them.
Note: if V was ridiculously sensitive, there would be no mens rea
(you do not intend to cause that individual to apprehend violence.
The AR also depends on the state of V- if V is deaf and cannot
hear the threat; there will be no AR (V would not apprehend the
threat).
Tuberville v Savage: words may negate a threat
D drew out his sword and said ‘if it wasn’t for the assizes I would
cut you’ – action of pulling out the sword was threatening but
negated by the words that implied that no physical action could
take place.
3. PERSONAL R v Ireland; Burstow, Lord Hope: it must be physical violence –
VIOLENCE a threat of psychological harm is not sufficient.
Psychological harm- charges under statute such as Protection
from Harassment Act 1997 may be more suitable.
Immediate does not need to mean instantaneous
4. IMMEDIATE
VIOLENCE Smith v Chief Superintendent Woking Police Station: D was a
tramp-made a nasty face at V through a window and she was
scared- D argued no apprehension of immediate violence
because there was a window and a locked door- not upheld.
Kerr LJ: ‘when one is in a state of terror, one is unable to analyse
precisely what they are scared of and what will happen next’.
R v Constanza: concerned letters and telephone calls- V was
frightened but it was not necessarily immediate violence- held that
the essential issue is whether there is a fear of violence at
some time, not excluding the immediate future.
R v Ireland; Burstow: D made a series of silent phone calls to
women over a period of three months- still assault- immediate
doesn’t mean instantaneous, it is a fairly fluid concept.
5. UNLAWFUL Consider whether any defences may apply- state this here but
VIOLENCE then explain defences in detail at the end of the question.
MENS REA
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 MB120696. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £3.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67866 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