Criminal Law - Battery mens rea and actus reus PDF

Preview

Summary

detailed lecture notes and case notes on the mens rea and actus reus of battery...

Description

Battery: -

A battery consists of the infliction of unlawful personal violence by D upon V which D, either intentionally or recklessly’

Violence? - ‘ the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence, and therefore prohibits the first and lowest stages of it; every mans person being scared, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest manner’ Blackstone (1760s), commentaries, iii, 120, cited by Goff LJ in Collins v Wilcock, at 378 Quite misleading to use the word violence Any slight touching will suffice for battery. Is it violence or mere contact? - It is mere contact and this was confirmed in Faulkner v Talbot [1981 3 All ER 468. Lord Lane at 471: ‘ an intentional touching for another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. It need not necessarily be hostile, or rude or aggressive..’ - Thomas 91985) 81 Cr App Rep 331

What about every day personal contact? If they do not consent then it is battery, however there is implied consent… - Cole v Turner (1704) 6 Mod Rep 149 - Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 Goff LJ: ‘Generally speaking, consent is a defence to battery; and most of the physical contacts of ordinary life are not actionable because they are impliedly consented to by all who move in society and so expose themselves to the risk of bodily contact’ - Coward v Baddeley (1859) 4 H & N 478 Touching someone for the purpose of gaining their attention is acceptable Battery is a very wide offence Actus Reus issues: Act or Ommision: Innes v Whylie (1844) 1 Car & Kir 257 - Policeman was trying to stop member of society from getting to the club room was part of society and policeman stood at door to try stop him from getting in, V said is this battery? No because he was just standing there not doing anything Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commisioner {1969] 1 QB 439 Ran over Vs foot, which was an accident but then refused to move so then was battery by omission.

Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 DPP v Santana Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 (admin) D was drug user, showed V, V was police officer, D was showing V that he didn’t carry any sharps but V stabs his finger on one of Vs Syringes, this was battery Must the act be hostile?? - No Faulkner v Talbot [1983] 3All ER 468 ‘ it need not necessarily be hostile, rude or aggressive’ Wilson v Pringle {1987} QB 237 – tort case - D grabs another school boys bag, courts said this wasn’t battery as they said there needs to be some hostility which therefore causes confusion with the Faulkner v Talbot case. Was then discussed again in Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 - Yes it has to be hostile, but hostile means that it was not consented to. Battery can be commited by someones clothes: Body includes clothes you wear. If someone slashes clothes this would suffice for battery. - Day (1845) 1 Cox CC 207 - Thomas (1985) 81 CR APP Rep 331 Does have to touch your body, just clothes. Direct and indirect force? Cases: Sheriff [1969] crim LR 260 Murgatroyd v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2000]. All ER (d) 1742 Scott v Sheperd (1773) 2 Wm Bl 892 Ireland; Burstow [1998] AC 147

Direct battery: Smith (1866) 176 ER 910 - D spat at V, if spit touches V it is battery. Savage and Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699 - D threw drink over someone, if drink touches V then it is battery Indirect battery: Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54 - D was in theatre and put lights out at end of performance and put an iron bar across the doorway and shouts fire. People are scared and run and get injured in the stampede. D inflicted battery. DPP v K [1990] 1 All ER 331 - D stole acid and put in hand dryer in a school, V uses hand dryer and gets burnt by the acid, this is also battery.

22/11/19 Battery: mens rea Venna [1976] QB 421 – it must be proved that D intentionally or recklessly applied force to another Subjective recklessness applies D v DPP [2005] EWHC 967 – test of recklessness involves foresight of the risk that the complainant will be subjected to unlawful force and the taking of that risk.

CPS charging standards: -

S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 charged where no aggravating factors and injuries no more than: Grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swellings, reddening of the skin, superficial cuts or black eye. Aggravating factors (where they may be charged with a more serious offence) include - The nature of the assault, such as the weapon, biting, gouging, kicking of a victim, strangulation which is more than fleeting or - The vulnerability of the victim.

s.47 OAPA Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – offences against the person act 1861 s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861: - whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable.. to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding five years. But what does it mean be assault? What does occasioning mean? What is the mens rea? s.47 Actus Reus result crime: - Ds conduct results in V either apprehending immediate and unlawful personal violence or sustaining personal violence, which subsequently also result in actual bodily harm

Assault or battery:

-

-

‘ the practical reason for thinking that psychic assault cannot be the only form of assault that will ground a charge under section 47 is that a person who is struck from behind, or when asleep, suffers (physical) battery and not physical assault. It cannot have been intended to exclude such cases from the reach of section 47’ Law Commission 1993, para 12.17

S.47: Actus Reus – occasioning What does occasioning mean? - Roberts (1972) Cr App R 95 Occasioning = cause - Savage; Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699 D intentionally through beer over V. V dropped her glass, Glass smashed and Vs wrist was cut. Did D cause ABH?? Yes. Objective test. Was the cut a natural consequence of throwing the beer? Courts said yes. Did the Action cause the outcome? - Law Commision 1993, para 12.20 ‘ a court must therefore go through a two stage process. First to see whether an assault has been committed, and then to determine whether the actual bodily harm has been caused by, or was the natural consequence of the act that is found to constitute the assault; in savage itself, ‘ mrs Savages handing of the glass’. What amounts to ABH? Miller [1954] 2 All ER 529 - ABH includes ‘ any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort. Used violence to get sex. Therefore he committed ABH. Chan Fook [1994] 1 WLR 698 - ‘ the word actual indicates that the injury (although there is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so trivial as to be wholly significant’ - The phrase ‘actual bodily harm’ is capable of including psychiatric injury. But it does not include mere emotions such as fear or distress nor panic nor does it include, as such, states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition’. Ireland; Burstow [1998] Morris [1998] - Expert advice required. Dhaliwal [2006] - Recognisable psychiatric illness must be distinguished from psychological injury

s.47 ABH:

Reigate Justices, ex parte Counsell [1984] 148 JP 193 Burns [2010] D tries to force V out of car. Picked up prostitute then changed his mind and pushed her out the car. She suffered grazes. This is sufficient ABH, DPP v Smith [2006] D sat on top of victim and cut off her ponytail. So cuts to scalp or damage. ‘ whether it is alive beneath the surface of the skin, or dead tissue above the surface of the skin, the hair is an attribute and part of the human body. It is intrinsic to each indicidual and to the identity of each individual.. an individuals hair is relevant o his or her autonomy. ‘ even if medically and scientifically speaking, the hair above the surface of the scape is no more than dead tissue, it remains part of the body and is attached to itt.’ ‘ while it is so attached, in my judgement it falls within the meaning of bodily in the phrase ABH. It is concerned with the body of the individual victim’ T v DPP [2003] - Losing consciousness also amounts to ABH ‘ it cannot be doubted that the loss of consciousness suffered by the victim in this case fell within the meaning of the word ‘harm’.

s.47 Mens Rea Roberts (1971) Just need mens rea do not have to intend ABH, cause of ABH is just the actus reus Savage; Permenter [1992] - The verdict of assault occasioning ABH may be returned upon proof of an assault together with proof of the fact ABH was occasioned by the assault - The prosecution are not obliged to prove that D intended to cause some ABH or was reckless as to whether such harm would be causes - Principle of correspondence and constructive liability POC = actus reus corresponds with mens rea. No correspondence here Constructive liability = liable for having greater level of harm than what u foresaw. s.47: CPS charging standards -

The degree of harm caused will in many cases be more than just the level of injuries sustained There will be cases where, although level on injury may be quite minor, the circumstances in which the assault took place.. make a charge of ABH appropriate Assessment of the overall harm causes Features that provide a useful indication of when a charge of ABH may be appropriate:

Use of a weapon of a kind likely to cause serious injury A weapon is used and serious injury is caused More than minor injury is caused by kicking or headbutting Serious violence is caused to those whose work has to be done in contact with the public are likely to face violence in the court of their work Violence to vulnerable people e.g. the elderly or infirm

S.20 OAPA maliciously wound or inflict GBH ‘whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict grievous bodily harm upon another person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be liable.. to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years Result crime; Ds conduct results in V sustaining a wound and/or grievous bodily harm. s.20 actus reus: can be committed in one of two ways, with or without any weapon or instrument either: i) D unlawfully wounded V; or ii) D unlawfully inflicted GBH on V With or without any weapon or instrument? R v Rigg, unreported, the times, 4 july 1997 Unlawfully: R v Stokes [2003] Fight outside pub, Victim got smashed glass No lawful justification Wound?? Mariarty v Brooks (1834) - A wound necessitates that the continuity of the skin (both the dermis and epidermins) be broken C (a minor) v Eisenhower [1984] - The word wound meant a break in the continuiuty of the whole skin - The rupture of internal blood vessels was not sufficient to constitute a wound for th epurposes of section 20 of the Act of 1861 Wood (1830) - Broken collar bone, not a wound...