Criminal law - non fatal offences PDF

Preview

Summary

criminal law notes - non fatal offences...

Description

CRIMINAL - Non fatal offences Non fatal offences  Assault (s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988)  Battery (s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988)  Assault occasioning ABH (s.47 Offences against the Person Act 1861)  Malicious wounding/inflicting GBH (s.20 Offences against the Person Act 1861)  Maliciously causing GBH/malicious wounding with intent to cause GBH (s.18 Offences against the Person Act 1861)

Force used must be unlawful. Assault  D intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful force  Can be words or gestures  Lamb (1967) 2 QB 981  Logdon v DPP (1976) Crim LR 121  Constanza (1997) 2 Cr App R 492 (stalking)  Ireland and Burstow (1998) AC 147 (stalking & silent phone calls)  Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1Mod Rep 3; 86 ER 684 Battery  D intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful force on another person  No form of physical injury is required  Concerns interference with an individuals autonomy  Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) 1 QB 439  DPP v Santa-Bermudez (2004) Crim LR 471  Haystead v DPP (2000) 2 Cr App R 339 Assault Occasioning ABH  S.47 Offences against the Person Act 1861 o “whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault (assault & battery) occasioning ABH shall be liable to be imprisoned…  lost or broken teeth/broken noses/extensive injury/minor fracture  psychological harm can amount to ABH  actus reus – actual bodily harm – any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim o Donovan (1934) 2 KB 498 o DPP v Smith (2006) 1 WLR 1571 o Ireland (1998) AC 147 o Chan Fook (1994) 1 WLR 189 o Dhaliwal (2006) 2 Cr App R 24 o Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 o Dpp v Santa-Bermudez (2004) Crim LR 471  Mens rea – intention or recklessness as to inflicting force

o Venna (1976) QB 421 o Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 o Savage; Parmenter (1992) 1 AC 669 Unlawful and malicious wounding or maliciously inflicting GBH  “whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any GBH upon any other person either with or without any weapon or instrument shall be guilty of an offence..”  actus reus – grievous bodily harm o DPP v Smith (1961) AC 147 o Ireland and Burstow (1998) AC 147 o Brown and Stratton (1998) Crim LR 485 o Bollom (2004) 2 Cr App R 50 – (convicted of s.47, s.20 & s.18 Offences against the Person Act 1861) o Dica (2004) QB 1257 (charged under s.20, sex without disclosing he was HIV positive) o Konzani (2005) 2 Cr App R 14 o Golding (2014) Crim LR 686  wound – breaking inner and outer layers of the skin – does not include internal bleeding o C v Eisenhower (1984) QB 331 (internal bleeding)  mens rea – maliciously o Savage; Parmenter (1992) 1 AC 699 o DPP v A (2001) Crim Lr 140 o Brady (2007) Crim LR 564 (conviction quashed – judge didn’t make clear that the test for recklessness was subjective Unlawful and malicious wounding or maliciously causing GBH with intent to cause GBH  S.18 offences against the Person Act 1861  Actus reus o D’s act caused V GBH or wounding  Mens rea o maliciously wound or cause GBH o intention to cause GBH o Belfon (1976) 1 WLR 741 o Brown and Stratton (1998) Crim LR 485  “whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause GBH to any person… with intent… to do some… GBH to any person… shall be guilty of an offence.”  Intentionally causing GBH with intent to cause GBH  Intentionally wounding with intent to cause GBH  Recklessly wounding with intent to cause GBH  max life in prison

Unlawful  common element in all offences against the person  recognises that force can be used in a lawful manner o self defence o consent Consent  3 issues: o does V have capacity to consent to harm? o Is harm a type tow which V can, as a matter of law, consent?  Governed by common law  Public policy  Brown (1994) 1 AC 212  A person can consent to common assault and battery  Collins v Wilcock (1986) 1 WLR 1172 o Has V, in the particular circumstances, consented fully and freely to harm or risk of harm?  Cannot be forced consent  it has to be consent to the particular harm on a particular occasion  can be express or implied by conduct  A person cannot consent to his/her death in any circumstances  a person cannot consent to ABH or GBH unless in relation to recognised exception to reason recognised by public policy. o Brown (1994) 1 AC 212 o Laskey, Jaaggard and Brown v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 39 o Donovan (1934) 2 KB 498 o CONTRASTING CASE: Wilson (1997) QB 47  Mrs Wilson wanted her husband to brand his initials on her bottom. She was able to consent of this act because it was in a married relationship. Court ruled it was similar to tattooing and other forms of body modification. Also, causing pain was not the object of the exercise.  Exceptions o Sport  Coney (1882) 8 QBD 549  Attorney-General’s Reference (No.6 of 1980) (1981) QB 715  Barnes (2005) 1 WLR 910  Billinghurst (1978) Crim LR 553 o Medical Treatment  B v An NHS Hospital Trust (2002) 2 All ER 449  medical treatment without consent is unlawful o Body modification o Rough Play  Jones (1986) 83 Cr App R 375  Aitken (1992) 1 WLR 1006  Richardson (1999) 1 Cr App Rep 392 o Individual cases

 Wilson (1998) QB 47 o Nature of consent  Collins v Wilcock (1986) 1 WLR 1172  Dica (2004) QB 1257  Konzani (2005) 2 Cr App R 14  Richardson (1999) QB 444...