1 / 10

Non Fatal Key Issues

Non Fatal Key Issues. Assault. It is key to this offence what the V apprehends as well as whether D causes apprehension.

jon
Download Presentation

Non Fatal Key Issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Non Fatal Key Issues

  2. Assault • It is key to this offence what the V apprehends as well as whether D causes apprehension. • Logdon: D held a gun at V, which unknown to the V was a replica, and threatened V that until he did as he said he could not leave the room. D’s defence was that it was a joke and he intended no harm. • Why was the D guility of Assault?

  3. Indirect batteries – this is an AR issue • Unlawful force can be applied without directly touching the V. • DPP v K: The D stole some acid from his school science and then hid it in hand drier. The V used the hand dryer and sprayed the acid over his face. • Explain why D was guilty of battery?

  4. Battery – Rob & Vincent • Rob chases Vincent and saying he will kill him. Vincent collapses with an asthma attack. Rob leaves Vincent saying he will not call for help. Vincent dies. • Explain how Rob is guilty of a battery?

  5. ABH - Occasioning • This means causes. So the Assault or battery must cause extra bodily harm. • In a scenario you are looking for linked events, eg Rob threatened Vincent that he will stab him and Vincent moves backwards and falls down the stairs, suffering heavy bruising. • Explain the case of Roberts in terms of an ABH?

  6. ABH – Meaning of Bodily Harm • Must be more than Fear , ________ or _______. Chan Fook. • Can be psychological harm, egIreland. • Must be a ‘serious matter amounting to actual (not trivial or insignificant) bodily harm’. • What about cutting off a pony tail on a women? Or be sprayed be paint? Case? • A momentary loss of consciousness is classed as ABH, T v DPP.

  7. ABH- Mens Rea • ABH has the same MR of either Assault or battery. • So what element of the offence is purely AR? • Savage: D threw a pint of beer over V after an argument. Unfortunately the glass slipped and cut V’s wrist. • Explain why Savage is guilty of the AR and MR of ABH?

  8. S20 & S18 – Have the same AR • Inflict in S20 has been interpreted to mean the same as cause in S18. • So both offences can be a wound or GBH. • GBH – Can take into account the age of the V when considering the seriousness of the injuries. Who was the V in Bollom? • GBH – Can be sexually transmitted, biological GBH, Case? • GBH – Can be serious psychological injuries, Case of threats and silent phone calls over a prolonged period causing the V to become severely depressed? • Brown & Stratton – smaller injuries can be accumulated together to form a serious injury.(page 84)

  9. S20 – Mens Rea • There is no need to prove the AR of this offence. • The MR is Direct intention or subjective recklessness as to _______ _______. • Lord Diplock confirmed this Mowatt: ‘It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.’ • DPP v A: A 13-year-old boy had mistakenly shot his friend in the eye whilst meaning to fire below knee level. • What do the P have to prove for the AR and MR? • The Court stressed in this case the P only have to prove that the D foresaw that some harm might occur, NOT would occur.

  10. S18 – Mens Rea • The P has to prove the D had a direct intention to cause GBH or a wound OR P has to prove an indirect intentionto cause GBH or a wound as per R v Belfon 1976. •  This is a specific intent crime and proof of intention is therefore imperative. • This is linked to the maximum life sentence the offence carries.

More Related