• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Looking at the offences of Assault, Battery, Actual bodily harm and Grievous really serious bodily harm.

Extracts from this document...


For this assignment I will be looking at the offences of Assault, Battery, Actual bodily harm and Grievous 'really serious' bodily harm. Common assault and a Battery are under S39 of the criminal justice act and are only classed as summary offences. If a defendant commits one or both of these offences then he/she will be liable for a fine or can be given a custodial sentence for up to six months. For the actus reus of assault it must be recognized that there was an act, that caused a person to fear, that immediate unlawful force is about to be used against them. For assault there doesn't even need to be any applied force, all that's needed is fear that they were going to be attacked. The fear could be simply raising your hand or running towards someone and this would, in law, constitute the actus reus of assault. To commit an assault all that is needed are words and this can be seen in the case of Constanza (1997). In this case the defendant had written 800 letters and made numerous phone calls to the victim. The House of Lords stated that silent phone calls can amount to an assault and this can be seen in the cases of R v. Ireland and Burstow. Usually it must be made certain that the victim feared an immediate infliction of force at that moment. ...read more.


Firstly I am going to look at the actus reus of the offence. When committing this offence, the defendant must have committed an assault or a Battery. The first necessity is therefore, to prove the actus reus of an assault or a Battery. Then the prosecution must then prove whether or not the assault and/or Battery caused ABH. In the case of Ann and Ben, the attack was more than a simple assault or Battery. In Miller (1954) the court stated: 'Actual bodily harm includes hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort. It was also accepted that ABH included not just physical harm, but also psychological injury will only count as ABH; if it is a clinically recognisable condition. "The defendant, in R vs. Chan-Fook aggressively questioned a man who he suspected of sealing his fianc´┐Że's jewellery. He then dragged him up stairs and locked him in to a room. The victim by this point was frightened of what the defendant would do on his return. The victim soon after attempted to escape through the window, but injured himself when he fell to the ground". "The defendant went in to a local pub, where she spotted her husband's new girlfriend having a drink with some friends. She went up to the table where the group were sitting, intending to throw a pint over the woman. On reaching the table, she said 'Nice to meet you darling' and threw the beer but, as she did so, she accidentally let go of the glass, which cut the woman's wrist. ...read more.


For behaving in this way he was charged with inflicting GBH under S.20 of the offences against the person act 1861. On appeal of his conviction the defendant argued that the requirements of the term 'cause' had not been satisfied. The court of appeal and House of Lords dismissed the appeal. The HL stated that: Section 20 could be committed where no physical force had been applied (directly or indirectly) on the body of the victim. I am now going to look at the mens rea of the offence. The mens rea for this offence is defined under the word 'maliciously'. In Cunningham it was stated that for the purpose of the 1861 Act maliciously meant 'intentionally or recklessly' and reckless is used with a subjective meaning. In the case of Mowatt (1967) established that there is no need to intend or be reckless as to cause GBH or wounding. The defendant does only need to intend, to be reckless or his or her acts could have caused some physical harm. As Lord Diplock said: "it is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in this section, i.e. wound or some physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character might result." This can be seen in the case of DPP v Parmenter (1992). To conclude Ann should be convicted of a section 20 offence because. ?? ?? ?? ?? Christopher Wylie Non-fatal Offences Access to Law 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Is the current law on the non-fatal offences against the person satisfactory?

    4 star(s)

    the defendant to apply force or cause the victim to "believe that any such force or impact is imminent", and to do so intentionally or recklessly; this effectively merges the existing offences. However, Clause 4(2) explicitly states that no offence is committed where the force applied is "generally acceptable in

  2. Non-Fatal Offences - Notes and Evaluation.

    which stated that the word 'inflict' in S20 did not mean that a technical assault had to take place. The definition of 'bodily harm' has also been extended to include injury to mental health so that defendants causing such injury can be convicted.

  1. Recognition Of Necessity

    The judgements by the lords in this specific case talk about the concept of the lesser of the two evils (source 10 line 31 and Source 11 line 16). This case and the judgements of a precedent nature bring about a distinction.

  2. There are two ways of committing common assault which are assault and battery. Both ...

    In this case court found that the victim's state of mind was not only terror but terror of some immediate violence. Therefore statement shows that it is the immediacy of violence which must be proven and not the immediacy of fear.

  1. Explain the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea

    The treatment was held as palpably wrong and it was independent of the Ds act. If the intervening act is reasonably foreseeable then the D is still liable as in R v Pagett where it was reasonably foreseeable that the police would shoot back at Pagett.

  2. Critically discuss the Labour Governments record of crime control since coming to power in ...

    This is partly from a growing disillusionment among influential policy-makers with the idea that crime can be controlled solely, or even principally, through the actions of the police and criminal justice system, and thus the BCS is further complemented by a variety of local surveys as well as a periodic

  1. How Satisfactory Is The Current Law On The Deception Offences?

    This would suggest that if the victim admits not caring whether the defendant's representation was true or false, an acquittal must follow. But, in Charles, an underlying link was implied even though the victim admitted not considering the question of whether the bank would or would not honour the cheque.

  2. Nina runs a burger bar. She puts up a sign in the window saying ...

    doctrine of constructive trust is so abstruse and so far from ordinary people's understanding of what constitutes stealing that it should not amount to stealing. There appear to be considerable overleap between sections 2 and 3, therefore for both Nina and Quince it is arguable that both sections are applicable, but the best solution must be chosen.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work