This document is a detailed essay plan for a unit 3 scenario question on non-fatal offences.
I have used the IDEA structure as provided by the JWEC guidance. You can use the same material for each non-fatal offences scenario, adjusting the application (as highlighted on the document in blue) eac...
The scenario is concerned with the issue of non-fatal offences. The actions of
(defendants in scenario) must be considered in light of the Offences Against the
Persons Act 1861, relevant case law and the CPS guidelines. By defining and
explaining the relevant law, it will be possible to establish whether (defendants in
the scenario) have committed any non-fatal offences.
Identify: Assault (s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Define: The actus reus of assault is ‘any act which causes the victim to
apprehend an immediate infliction of violence’. In Smith v Chief Superintendent
of Woking Police Station (1983) the defendant, who was staring through a
window at a woman who was alone in her house at night, was charged with
assault. It was held that although he was outside, it was still ‘immediate’ enough
to satisfy the actus reus and that it was not necessary to establish what the
victim feared would happen, a general apprehension was sufficient.
Apply: Have the people in the scenario committed an act which has caused the
victim to apprehend an immediate infliction of violence? If yes, they may be
guilty of assault.
Define: The mens rea for assault is either the intention to cause such an
apprehension, or recklessness to the fact such apprehension may occur. Since R
v G and Another (2003) recklessness is nearly always taken to be subjective. So,
it must be established that the defendant themselves knew they were taking the
risk.
Apply: Did the defendants in the scenario intend to cause the apprehension of
the victim? If not, were they at least reckless in doing so? If yes, they could be
guilty of assault.
Identify: Battery (s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Define: The actus reus for battery is ‘the application of unlawful force on
another’. In Haystead v DPP (2000), where the defendant punched a woman
causing her to drop her baby, it was held that battery does not have to be direct.
Battery can also be committed by an omission, unlike assault, as portrayed in
DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003) where the defendant failed to inform the officer
searching him of a needle in his pocket. In the CPS Charging Guidelines, it states
that for a battery “injury amounts to no more than a graze, scratch, abrasion,
bruise (inc black eye), swelling, reddening of the skin or a superficial cut’.
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 lydiadavies. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £5.09. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
