Reena in respect of Chloe.

Authors Avatar

Paragraph 1 - Reena in respect of Chloe

Charges brought against the accused depend upon the injuries caused to and suffered by the victim. In this case Chloe only suffers bruises and scratches, which constitute as minor injuries therefore Reena can be charged with the common assault known as a battery as defined by section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act.

The Actus Reus for a battery is the application of unlawful force to someone else. The applying of force does not have to be personal contact; touching another’s jacket would suffice for a battery as long as the other feels it. As is known from the case of Cole v Turner the slightest degree of force, even the mere touching will suffice. The definition of force in this context would be the application of strength or energy. If there is no application of force there cannot be a battery. The harm suffered also needs to be physical; causing someone psychiatric harm does not constitute a battery.

With this in mind it is not clear whether Reena could be liable for a battery, as she has not actually touched Chloe in any way. However from the case of DPP v K concerning a schoolboy pouring sulphuric acid into a hot air shaft and when another comes to use it the acid blows onto his face resulting in permanent scarring, it was found that force could be applied directly or indirectly. Indirectly would apply in those situations where the accused creates an obstruction or places an object, which results in force being applied to the victim when the victim carries out some form of conduct. In this case Reena removes screws from a chair so that when the victim for whom this booby trap situation was created sits on it, it collapses. It is now held that a positive act is required to commit a battery and Reena’s conduct constitutes a positive act. The fact that Chloe not Belle turns out to be the victim is irrelevant. It also needs to be proven that the force applied was unlawful, thus not consented to by the victim. An offence can be committed despite consent if it is invalid. The general rule regarding consent where actual bodily harm is intended or caused as held by the court of appeal in A-G’s reference (No 6 of 1980) is that a persons consent is irrelevant and cannot prevent criminal liability if an injury is caused, which is not completely trivial. A battery cannot be unlawful if force is applied in a self-defence situation or if the accused is acting under a statutory obligation.

Join now!

Reena’s conduct does not satisfy any of these exceptions therefore it can clearly be stated that she has applied ‘unlawful’ force to Chloe’s body. It is clear from these facts that Reena has committed the Actus Reus for a battery.

The Mens Rea for a battery is that the accused intended to apply unlawful force to another or was subjectively reckless as to whether such force might be applied. For the Mens Rea of intent it must be proven that Reena’s direct aim or purpose in this case was to apply unlawful force. Direct intention was defined as ...

This is a preview of the whole essay