Looking at the offences of Assault, Battery, Actual bodily harm and Grievous really serious bodily harm.
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. A key example of this is in the case of Smith v. Chief Superintendent, Woking police station (1983). In this case, the defendant
![Criminal Law Advice to client. This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861[1] and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary t](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/951898/listing/951898_1.jpg)
Criminal Law Advice to client. This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861[1] and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary t
R v David Harris ADVICE TO CLIENT This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 18611 and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary to s. 18 OAPA 1861. 2The first part of this advice concerns the incident involving David's sister Florence resulting in the s.47 OAPA 1861 charge. In a s.47 offence, both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) 2of either assault or battery must be proven[RM1]. The AR for battery is the infliction of unlawful force on another person3, which is immediately satisfied as David indeed inflicted unlawful force on Florence by "pulling her out of the way", which then, in relation to Florence's sprained ankle, occasioned actual bodily harm. Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim-such harm need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling.4 Therefore, the sprained ankle is sufficient for the s.47 charge. 3The MR for s. 47 is that of assault or battery-intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful force. At the time that David committed the offence, he was furious at Florence stating that she would not allow him to leave if he was going to cause trouble. It could be argued that the MR for injuring
![The decision in DPP v Smith [2006] EWHC Crim (Admin) has resulted in the phrase actual bodily harm being drained of its natural meaning. Explain and critically evaluate this statement.](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/1207878/listing/1207878_1.jpg)
The decision in DPP v Smith [2006] EWHC Crim (Admin) has resulted in the phrase actual bodily harm being drained of its natural meaning. Explain and critically evaluate this statement.
The ruling of Judge P in DPP v Smith (2006) is that the non-consensual cutting of a substantial quantity of the victim's hair could amount to actual bodily harm (ABH).[1] This essay will evaluate whether this judgment is a deviation from 'natural' meaning. It will argue that the decision in Smith is in fact one term in an incremental extension of precedents which have remained within the natural use of the phrase 'actual bodily harm'. ABH is an offence occasioned by assault under s. 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. ABH is not defined in statute, and therefore we must look to common law for a definition. In the often cited judgment in R v Donovan (1934), the court held that: 'bodily harm' has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the prosecutor. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than merely transient or trifling.'[2] The definition given in the Donovan judgment could be seen as encompassing the act of non-consensually cutting a substantial amount of someone's hair, given that it is more than merely 'transient or trifling', and capable of 'interfering with the... comfort' of the victim. Donovan set the precedent that ABH need not include physical pain, and subsequent rulings have expanded the scope of ABH incrementally. R v Reigate Justices, ex parte Counsel
For this essay we will be looking at the defence of assault and battery, consent. But first we have to discuss what is assault and battery.
In most crimes there are always defences to the offence that has been committed, for example, if one is charged with murder, then a defence of either provocation or diminished responsibility can be raised. There are other defences such as mistake or intoxication. In this case one will discuss when the defence of consent can be used against a criminal charge. For this essay we will be looking at the defence of assault and battery, consent. But first we have to discuss what is assault and battery. Assault and battery are separate crimes, under S.39 of the Criminal Justice act 1988. This was confirmed in the case of DPP vs. Little 1992. In legal terms an assault means to cause V to apprehend force, for example, waving a fist at someone's face is deemed an assault, while battery means to apply force to V; for example, punching someone in the face is a battery. Usually the two crimes are committed close together. So for instance, drawing your fist back is an assault, and then throwing the punch and connecting is a battery. Hence assault and battery. In the case of R vs. Clarence 1888 P consented to intercourse with D, despite D knowing that he was suffering from a venereal disease, which P did not know about. D was convicted of assaulting her, but his appeal was allowed. It was held that because P consented to intercourse with D there was no assault. However, consent is
The Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39 provides that assault is a summary offence with a maximum sentence on conviction of six months' imprisonment or a fine.
Sunny Bhanot 16H 21/02/03 Law Essay - ASSAULTS. Before advising David as to his criminal liability, the following act should be recognised; The Criminal Justice Act 1988, s. 39, which deals with assault and battery and The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (including s. 47, s. 18 and s. 20). This act deals with the different types of non fatal offences against the person. ASSAULT: The Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39 provides that assault is a summary offence with a maximum sentence on conviction of six months' imprisonment or a fine. The actus reus of an assault (or common assault) is committed when the accused intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. The House of Lords recently confirmed this definition in the case of Ireland 1997, where an assault would be committed from silent phone calls, i.e. saying on the phone 'I will kill you' would amount to an assault. It can be seen that no force need actually be applied to constitute this offence; the victim need only apprehend personal injury. The mens rea of assault is satisfied when the defendant intends to cause the victim to apprehend immediate physical violence or does this recklessly. The Court of Appeal stated in the case of Venna 1976 that: 'We see no reason in logic or in law why a person who recklessly applies physical force to the person of another
Using actual situations, describe the elements of actus reus and mens rea in criminal law.
LAW COURSEWORK: Number Three Name: Joseph Tilbury Examination Number: Centre name: Spalding Grammar School Centre Number: 26233 Component Code: 1177/3 Examination Session: Summer 2003 I. Using actual situations, describe the elements of actus reus and mens rea in criminal law. It is necessary for the prosecution, in the bulk of crimes, to prove two elements in order for a person to be found guilty of a crime. These are the actus reus (which means the guilty act) and the mens rea (which means the guilty mind/intention), and it is only in strict liability crimes where the act alone (the mens rea) is enough to prove a person guilty. Examples of strict liability crimes are possession offences (the defendant possesses, for example, knives, guns or drugs) and not wearing a seatbelt. The actus reus can be an act (e.g. stabbing someone) or an omission (e.g. not halting at a red light), whilst the mens rea can be caused by intention (this level must be proved for the most serious crimes including theft, burglary, robbery, murder) or recklessness (taking an unjustifiable risk, this level must be proved in crimes including assault and battery). It is easiest for me to describe the elements of a crime by utilising real cases and offences. I must first however explain the chain of causation, which is where there is an intervening act between the defendant's guilty act and the
There are two ways of committing common assault which are assault and battery. Both of there offences are charged under s39 criminal justice act 1988 and summary offences.
There are two ways of committing common assault which are assault and battery. Both of there offences are charged under s39 criminal justice act 1988 and summary offences. Firstly I am going to look at assault which is known as a technical assault or psychic assault. Assault is when defendant intentionally or subjectively recklessly causes another person to fear immediate unlawful personal violence. For the Actus Reus of assault, you must establish that there has been an act which has caused another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force. An assault requires some acts or word this can be seen in Lodgon v DPP where defendant opened a drawer in his office to show another person that there was a gun in it, which defendant said was loaded. In fact the gun was fake. The actions of defendant were held to amount to an assault. Words are sufficient to amount to an assault which can be seen in Constanza (1997) the CA held that letters can be an assault. In this case defendant had written 800 letters and made a number of phone calls to the victim. The victim interpreted the last two letters as clear threats. The CA held that there was an assault, as there was fear of violence at some time, 'not excluding the immediate future'. It must be proven that the threat of unlawful force would take place almost immediately. This can be seen in Smith v Constable of
Consent to harm, discuss.
In order to assess the Lord Woolf dicta regarding the general rule in consent and exceptions to it, it is necessary to look at actual bodily harm and whether public policy considerations nullify consent and if so to what extent. The implications of the common assault aspect of the section 47 offence are that there is a requirement for unlawful personal violence. The absence of this unlawful aspect therefore arguably could vitiate criminal liability. In Attorney-General Reference (No 6 of 1980) consenting to the fight prevented liability. It is however notable that the courts have chosen to interpret consent as only one consideration as well as concealment, intention, forseeability, level of harm and public policy. If a person could consent to being killed, assaulted of maimed it would have massive public policy implications. Therefore judicial interpretation has focused on these issues in interpreting whether consent can be used as a defence in actual bodily harm. Case law has posed the question whether true consent to actual bodily harm is vitiated when there is a foresight of harm and whether the law has the right to interfere in sexual autonomy. The common law position has seemingly been that unless there was sufficient reason for 'harm being risked or caused', then consent does not negative the harm. As a general rule therefore consent itself as a matter of policy was
R v David Smith. - ABH, criminal law
R v David Smith a) The Prosecutors Submission: The Defendant is charged with two cases of assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, according to Section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, arising out of an incident that occurred in Theobald Road, Smallville on the 11th of August 2003. This is an aggravated assault, and the Prosecution must prove an unlawful assault which caused the victim to sustain an injury that is more than merely 'trifling' or 'superficial,' but as long as the injury is 'not so trivial as to be insignificant,' it shall suffice. The defendant has pleaded guilty to both of the charges. In a brief summary of the facts, David Smith was alone in his car on the early morning of the 11th of August 2003. Whilst driving along Lansdowne Road, he turned into Beda Road and upon seeing a marked police traffic patrol vehicle, stuck his fingers out of the window and made an obscene gesture at the Police officer operating the marked vehicle. David Smith then turned into Brunswick Street, driving in the middle of the road, causing a taxi to take evasive action. Mr Smith proceeded to make a number of left and right turns whilst travelling at speeds of up to sixty miles per hour in a thirty miles per hour residential area. Mr Smith got out of his vehicle at the end of Lansdowne Road and ran away from the police car in a Westerly direction. After being chased by
Criminal Law - Assignment 2
Criminal Law - Assignment 2 Non-Fatal Offences Against the person Ray could be charged with wounding under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The act deals with the majority of offences against the person which are non fatal. Battery is the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to the body of a person without that persons consent. Battery can be committed using a weapon. There does not need to be an intention to injure, nor need it be aggressive or hostile but there must be some force. Serious acts of battery are dealt with by the Offences against the Person Act, 1861. Section 20 states that it is an offence for a person to unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon another. Two offences exist under s20; unlawful wounding of another and unlawful infliction of grievous bodily harm on a person. A wound is any injury that penetrates the skin, it need not be serious but it must break the inner and outer skin. Ray, having whipped Kate with a dog lead has caused cuts on Kate's body, which would constitute wounding. Maliciously means that the possibility of harm must have been foreseeable by the defendant. This offence does not request that the perpetrator intended the full consequence or was reckless as to the harm caused, however he must intend some harm but need not have intended grievous bodily harm or
