asault§

Created by: Rachel
Created on: 10-04-14 17:10

View mindmap

Assault
- Battery
  - ACTUS REUS
    - Unlawful use of force against another person
  - MENS REA
    - Intention or recklessness that force will be used agains another
  - Doesn't need to be an injury - defendant can still be guilty of battery
    - touching another person is enough if it is done w/o consent
      - touching must be hostile in the sense it isn't consented to, not hostile in the sense its aggressive - Brown
  - can be committed via a weapon/object
    - FAGAN
      - intentionally allowed wheel of car to be accidentally driven onto victims foot
    - DPP v K
      - schoolboy put acid in hand drier and another boy was splashed w/ acid when he later used drier
    - HAYSTEAD v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF DERBYSHIRE
      - man punched woman who was holding her baby. He committed battery agains the baby as it hit the floor
  - battery doesn't include everyday touching o touching which is generally acceptable
    - eg: bumping into somebody on tube, tapping someone on shoulder to point out they have dropped something (Collins v Wilcock)
- Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
  - aggravated assault - s.47 OAPA 1961
    - assault w/ the additional element of bodily harm
  - made up of
    - An assault (common assault or battery)
    - occasioning
      - must be shown assault caused the ABH. it isn't enough that theres been an assault/battery and the victim suffered ABH
      - Ireland - must be shown that the fear of imminent unlawful violence caused physiological injuries
        not enough that illness was caused by general distress after telephone calls or fear they may ring again
    - Actual Bodily Harm
      - bruises, grazes
      - cutting hair - DPP v Smith
      - no need to prove pain
      - physiological illness is ABH - Chan Fook
- Maliciously administering Poison
  - 2 offences in OAPA - s.23 & 24
    - ACTUS REUS: administration of poison to another person
      - can be administrated directly or indirectly
  - s. 24 - a specific intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy is required
  - MENS REA: malice
  - s. 23 - administration must have caused GBH or endangered life of the victim
- CONSENT
  - provides defence to charge of battery/assault
    - consent must be positive consent given by a competent victim
      - can be suffering from mistake to the nature of act or the identity of defendant
  - there is authority for where consent is a defence even though the victim has suffered ABH or worse
    - tattooing, ritual circumcision of males, ear piercing, personal adornment
      - WILSON 1996 - a man at her request burned his wives bum with a hot knife to leave scars spelling his initials
    - religious mortification
      - as part of a religious repentance, one person asks another to inflict pain on them
    - Rough horseplay
      - children/adults play rough games
    - surgery carried out by a medically qualified person
    - Consensual non-violent sexual relatonships
      - DICA 2004
        Appellant convicted of inflicting GBH on 2 women who he had sexual relations with
        He was HIV + and had infected them w/ virus
        At trial the judge ruled that whether or not the victims had consented - after following Brown - no defence
        COA held ruling incorrect - if victims were aware of appellants HIV status and had consented to risk of catching it then their consent provided a defence to a s.20 charge
        As it was shown they knew he had HIV - wouldn't be difficult
        Even if women hadn't been told of defendants status, this couldn't be **** as they had consented to sexual intercourse
      - a defendant suffering from a sexually transmitted disease can be guilty of inflicting GBH if they know that they have the condition and their partner doesn't consent to running the risk of catching the diease

Get Revising

asault§

Comments

Similar Fun resources: