Offences against the person PDF

Preview

Summary

Offences against the personThe Ladder of Offences  Common Assault  Battery  s Assault or battery occasioning Actual Bodily Harm  s Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm  s wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intentThe Scope of the Law  The overall scope of the law is determined...

Description

Offences against the person The Ladder of Offences  Common Assault  Battery  s.47 Assault or battery occasioning Actual Bodily Harm  s.20 Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm  s.18 wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent The Scope of the Law  The overall scope of the law is determined by its most trivial offence: common assault. To see how broad the law is, consider the decision in R v Constanza. The Difference that the Actus Reus makes  Sometimes offences are distinguished simply by the actus reus. For example, whether actual bodily harm is caused is the only thing that distinguishes common assault from assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47). This makes an important difference, because assault and battery are summary offences, with a maximum prison sentence of 6 months, whereas the maximum prison sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm is 5 years.  Actual bodily harm is harm that is more than trifling or trivial, but includes relatively minor harm such as scratches, grazes, bruises and cutting of the hair. It also includes psychiatric as well as physical injury.  The result of the relationship between assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm is that two defendants who have an identical level of fault can be convicted of different offences, one of which is much more serious than the other, simply as a result of what these defendants has caused.  Furthermore, a conviction of a s.47 offence can arise even though the defendant had no fault at all with respect to the actus reus of the crime. The mens rea of the s.47 offence is identical to the mens rea of assault. This makes s.47 a constructive crime: a crime that is constructed from the mens rea of a lesser crime and the actus reus of a more serious crime. To see how this works in practice, consider R v Savage [1992] 1 AC 699.  Some think that this violates a principle that they claim should guide the criminal law: the correspondence principle. The Difference that the Mens Rea makes





Sometimes offences are distinguished simply by the mens rea. For example, the actus reus of s.20 and s.18 are identical. The only difference between them is that the s.18 offence is in the mens rea. And the mens rea of s.18 is quite chaotic. The challenge here is the converse of that we saw when comparing common assault and s.47. Where defendants have done identical things, should the law distinguish offenders simply on the basis of different mens rea?

What is Consent?  The criminal law has not really grappled with the nature of consent adequately. The main cases involving consent to harm do not provide much of an account of what consent involves. There is a definition of consent in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but it is not clear that this definition applies outside the context of sexual offences – the 2003 Act restricts the application of the definition to offences within that legislation. Why Does Consent Matter?  There are two main theories of the significance of consent: o Welfare Theory (After John Stuart Mill): Consent is significant because people know what is in their own best interests. o Autonomy Theory (After Immanuel Kant): Consent is significant because of respect for autonomy. Validity and the Causes of Consent  One way in which consent might be invalid is concerned with how it comes about. Suppose that consenting is something like permitting a person to do something. A person might permit another to do something because she is threatened, or because she is involuntarily intoxicated, or because she lacks information vital to her decision. And her consent is then made invalid. Validity and the Content of Consent  But consent can also be invalid simply because of what is consented to. For example, if I consent to you being harmed, my consent is invalid simply because I don’t have the power to permit another person to harm you. More controversially, there may also be limits to what I can consent to when only I am affected. For example, perhaps I can’t consent to being killed or seriously harmed, at least when there is no further good reason to do these things.  Can’t consent to underage sex BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560.  Facts: The defendant was a tattooist, and piercer, who also engaged in body modification. The case involved three procedures that he



conducted on three different people – the removal of the outer ear of a person, the removal of a person’s nipple, and the splitting of a person’s tongue. It was assumed that consent had been given, and that there was no evidence that those on whom the procedures were conducted suffered from mental illness. Decision: The defendant was charged under s.18 of OAPA 1861. There was no doubt that the defendant’s conduct amounted to GBH and if consent was not valid, a conviction would be warranted. The Court of Appeal decided that consent was not a defence.

Barnes [2005] 1 WLR 910  Facts: The defendant, a footballer, made a reckless tackle during a match, injuring the victim. It was not clear whether he had the intention to injure the victim, or whether he was aiming to get the ball, but did so in a reckless manner.  Decision: The defendant was charged with the s.20 offence. His conviction was overturned as the judge had failed to direct the jury adequately on consent. It was argued that conduct could fall outside the rules of the game, and yet be consented to....