Non Fatal Offences

Assault

The non-fatal offences that I will describe in this video are assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm/wounding. Each of these offences requires both actus reus and mens rea to be established.

The offence of assault is defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39. Assault occurswhen a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. This is well illustrated in the case of R v Nelson, where the Court of Appeal stated that “What is required for common assault is for the defendant to have done something of a physical kind which causes someone else to apprehend that they are about to be struck”. The actus reus of assault may be an act or an omission. They can include words, actions, or even silence! In R v Constanza, the defendant wrote the victim letters which caused the victim to feel threatened, either now or in the future. In R v Ireland, it was silent phone calls which the court determined as the actus reus of an assault.

In addition, the defendant need not be in “fear”, i.e. ‘“scared”, they just have to hold the belief that violence will occur. Bravery on the part of the victim doesn’t negate the offence. Furthermore, there is no offence if the victim perceives that there is no threat. This was the case in R v Lamb, where the victim believed that a revolver being pointed at him would not fire a bullet (as he believed that the firing chamber was unloaded).

Sometimes it is possible that an assault can be negated. This may be because it is impossible for the threat to be carried out. As well as this, words can also negate a threat. For example in Tuberville v Savage, the defendant threatened the victim, but then qualified the threat by stating that the threat wouldn’t be carried out at that time, showing that he wasn’t going to do anything.

Finally, the force which is threatened must be unlawful. Examples where lawful force could be used might include force used in self-defence or defence of another, or where the force is threatened or used by a police officer in the execution of their duties.

Battery

The offence of battery is also defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39. Battery occurs whena person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another. Battery is the physical extension to assault and not only includes violence, but can mean any unwanted touching. In Collins v Wilcock, the defendant was a police officer who took hold of a woman’s arm in order to prevent her walking away from him as he was questioning her about alleged prostitution. She succeeded in her case that the officer had committed battery, as he had gone beyond mere touching and had tried to restrain her, even though she was not being arrested.

A battery may occur as part of a continuing act. In the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the defendant parked his car on a police officer’s foot. It wasn’t until the defendant decided to leave the car there that the battery occurred. Until then, there was no unlawful force applied.

One can go even further in the definition of the battery and argue that the touching of the hem of a skirt constitues a battery. This happened in R v Thomas, where the judge decided that the touching of a person’s clothing amounted to the touching of the person themselves.

Another way in which battery can occur is indirectly. This could include setting a booby trap. In the case of R v Martin, the defendant placed an iron bar across the doorway of a theatre and then turned the lights off, causing panic. This led to several people injuring themselves whilst trying to open the door. In DPP v K, a schoolboy hid acid in a hand-drier, intending to remove it later. In the meantime, another student used the hand-drier and was sprayed with the acid, causing injury.

Finally, a battery can also be caused by an omission. In the case of DPP v Santa-Bermudez, the defendant failed to tell a police officer, when asked, that there was a sharp needle in his pocket, before he was searched. The officer cut her finger on the needle and the defendant was found by the court to be liable for battery, due to the omission.

GBH

Grievous bodily harm/Wounding is also defined in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. To prove the offence, it must be shown that the defendant wounded or inflicted grievous bodily harm. Furthermore, that they intended some injury or were reckless as to the injury being caused. It should be noted that the if the defendant intended injury, they do not have to have intended serious injury.

A “wound” is classified as a cut or break in the continuity of the skin. Breaking only one layer of skin would be insufficient, such as a cut to the inside of someone’s cheek. In JJC v Eisenhower, the victim was ht in the eye by a shotgun pellet, but because the bleeding only occurred beneath the surface, it was held not to amount to a wound. There must be a cut to the whole of the skin so that the skin is no longer intact.

The word “grievous” is taken to mean “serious”. This was decided in the case of __DPP __v Smith, where the level of injury was said to be “really serious harm”. This was changed in R v Saunders, where the word “really” was removed from the definition so as to clarify the nature of the offence. The offence does not have to be life-threatening and can include many minor injuries, not just one major one. In R v Bollom, it was also decided that the age and health of the victim should play a part in assessing the severity of the injuries caused. After all, inflicting the same injuries to a strong and healthy 21 year old and a frail 90 year old will usually result in very different levels of harm and so the law should reflect this.

As with the law on ABH, the level of harm for GBH can include “serious” psychiatric injury. This was decided in R v Burstow, where the victim suffered sever depression as a result of being stalked by the defendant. Biological GBH [“Biological GBH”] _is another aspect. This was seen in R v Dica, where the defendant caused the victim to become infected with the HIV virus by having unprotected sex without informing them that he was _HIV-positive.

The mens rea of GBH __can be recklessness or intention. Reckless __GBH __is defined under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and simply requires that the defendant was subjectively reckless as to some harm occurring as a result of their actions or omissions. In section 18, the defendant must have intended to do some grievous bodily harm. An intention to wound is not enough, as seen in the case of R v Taylor, where it was unclear whether the defendant had intended serious harm by their actions. The Court of Appeal therefore substituted a conviction for section 20 __GBH rather than section 18.

Under what section of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is assault defined?

39

True or false: In R v Thomas, it was determined that the touching of clothing should amount to the touching of the person?

True

Can psychiatric injury be classed as ABH?

Yes

In DPP v Smith, did the cutting of hair amount to ABH or GBH?

ABH

What is the word “grievous” taken to mean?

Serious

In R v Dica, what virus was the victim infected with?

HIV

ABH

The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is defined in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 47. Assault occasioning ABH is defined as an assault which causes Bodily Harm (ABH). This includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. Such hurt need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling. In other words, it must be more than minor and short term. The harm can result from physical violence, could include psychiatric harm and could even be cause by the victim’s own actions, where they try to escape from the apprehended unlawful force of the defendant.

In R v Miller the court stated that actual bodily harm was “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim”. This was then added to in R v Chan Fook, where the court decided that psychiatric injury could be classed as actual bodily harm, but that it must be “not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant”. Furthermore, loss of consciousness, even for a moment, can be argued to be actual bodily harm, as illustrated by T v DPP.

Pain is not required for the harm to be classed as ABH. This is well illustrated by DPP v Smith, where the defendant cut off the victim’s pony tail and some hair from the top of her head without her consent. As the amount of hair was substantial, the Divisional Court decided that the hair-cutting should amount to ABH.

Under what section of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is assault defined?

39

True or false: In R v Thomas, it was determined that the touching of clothing should amount to the touching of the person?

True

"Can psychiatric injury be classed as ABH?

Yes

In DPP v Smith, did the cutting of hair amount to ABH or GBH?

ABH

What is the word “grievous” taken to mean?

Serious

In R v Dica, what virus was the victim infected with?

HIV