The scenario states that Colin grabbed Sarah's coat. The Actus Reus for battery is 'application of unlawful force'. The case of R v Thomas involved the 'defendant' (D) rubbing the hen of a girl's skirt and was deemed that touching a person's clothes was the same as touching a person. Colin grabbed Sarah's coat, and thus under the ruling of the Thomas case, he had applied unlawful force. The Mens Rea for battery is 'intention or recklessness to apply unlawful force'. Colin had grabbed Sarah intentionally, as he is said to go onto punch Sarah. Colin is therefore guilty of committing the Common law offence of battery, and can be sentenced up t six months imprisonment in a Magistrates' court.
The scenario indicates that Colin punched Sarah in the face, which resulted in her having a broken nose and falling to the ground. The Actus Reus for battery is present from the punch from Colin, which resulted in the broken nose. The Mens Rea is satisfied by Colin intentionally punching directly out at Sarah, which broke her nose. Colin is therefore guilty of the offence of battery.
The broken nose suffered by Colin's punch on Sarah indicates that Colin could be guilty of a more serious punishment. The Actus Reus for s.47 'actual bodily harm' (ABH), as set out in 'Offences Against the Person Act' (OAPA) 1861, is 'assult or battery', coupled with 'ABH'. It has already been established that a battery was present. The case of Miller defined ABH as 'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim'. Richard seems to have punched Sarah with a significant amount of force, of which he would of known would damage the health of the V.The Mens Rea for s.47 ABH is 'intention or recklessness to cause the assault or battery'. Colin intentionally punched out at Sarah, which broke her nose, and thus indented to cause the battery. Colin is therefore guilty of committing a ABH under s.47 OAPA, and can be sentenced up to 5 years imprisonment.
Colin lunged at Gregory with a knife and therefore slashed Gregory's hand, which caused severe bleeding. The Actus Reus for s.18 and s.20 wounding or 'grievous bodily harm' (GBH), as set out in the OAPA 1861, is 'unlawfully or maliciously wounding, or inflicting GBH'. The case of Eisenhower defined a wounding to be 'a cut in all the layers of the skin'. The fact that Colin “lunged” at Gregory, with the injuries being “severe bleeding”, would amass to the definition of wounding as set out in Eisenhower. The Mens Rea of s.20 OAPA wounding or GBH is 'intention or recklessness to cause some harm'. Whereas the Mens Rea for s.18 OAPA includes 'intention to cause GBH'. On balance, it seems as though Colin intended some harm, thus constituting to the Mens Rea of s.20 wounding or GBH. Colin lunged wildly at Colin, with the knife in possession. To lunge “wildy” indicates a reckless act. The knife had been in Colin's possession from the previous stages, there is nothing to show in the scenario that Colin purposly aimed the knife at Gregory to cause a wounding. Colin is therefore guilty of committing a wounding under s.20 OAPA, and can be sentenced up to 5 years imprisonment.
Colin kicked Sarah in the stomach, causing severe internal injuries. The case of Smith defined GBH as 'really serious harm'. The case of Burstow simply stated that the meaning of inflict was equal to 'cause', and that no technical assault or battery was required. The Actus Reus includes 'inflicting GBH'. From the Burstow & Smith cases it can be seen that “serious internal injuries” were caused, and that these signicicant injuries amount to really serious harm. The Mens Rea for s.18 OAPA would be present over that of s.20 OAPA, as it is identifiable that Colin intend GBH, and not just some harm. Colin is said to take aim at the already injured Sarah and kicks her in the stomach, one of the most vulnerable parts of the human body. Colin is therefore guilty of committing a wounding under s.18 OAPA, and can be sentenced up to life imprisonment.
