non fatal offences against the person

Non Fatal - ABHNon Fatal Offences Against the Person

© The Law Bank 1

Non Fatal Offences Against the Person

Non Fatal Offences – s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Assault

Occasioning actual Bodily Harm (ABH)


© The Law Bank 2

Starter1. Which act covers the most serious non-fatal

offence against the person?2. Is a threat to kill you next week an assault?3. Is assault a basic intent crime?4. What is the actus reus for assault?5. Which non-fatal offence is a specific intent crime?6. Why wouldn’t brushing past someone in a

crowded Tesco’s be battery?


© The Law Bank 3

Starter answers1. Which act covers the most serious non-fatal offence against

the person? OAPA 18612. Is a threat to kill you next week an assault? No3. Is assault a basic intent crime? Yes4. What is the actus reus for assault? An act which causes

another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence

5. Which non-fatal offence is a specific intent crime? S.18 OAPA 1861

6. Why wouldn’t brushing past someone in a crowded Tesco’s be battery? Implied consent


© The Law Bank 4

Objectives• Describe using authority the actus reus of s47

of the Offences against the Person Act 1861

• Describe using authority the mens rea of s47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861

• Apply the actus reus and mens rea of ABH to problem questions


© The Law Bank 5

ABH– Key Principles• Least serious of the non fatal offences found in the

OAPA 1861

• Section 47 states penalty only

• Elements found in common law

• Triable either way

• Five years


© The Law Bank 6

Definition – OAPA 1861 s47• Whosoever shall be convicted on indictment of

any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable … to imprisonment for any term not exceeding five years


© The Law Bank 7

Actus Reus • Actus reus of common assault

Or

• The actus reus of battery

Plus

• Occasioning Actual bodily harm


© The Law Bank 8

Actus Reus of ABH • S .47 is a common assault or battery that results

in actual bodily harm

• 2 different ways it can be satisfied– Assault resulting in ABH– Battery resulting in ABH


© The Law Bank 9

Occasions• Occasion appears to mean the same as ‘cause’

• Normal rules of causation applies

• Confirmed in Roberts (1971)


© The Law Bank 10

Actual Bodily Harm• Common law definition is vague• Miller [1954] described it as ‘Any hurt or injury

calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim.’ Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than merely transient and trifling.

• R v Chan Fook (1994) injury “should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant’


© The Law Bank 11

R v Miller (1954)Case Law

Assault - ABH - actus reus - includes injury to state of mind

D had non-consensual sexual intercourse with his wife, after which she was "in a hysterical and nervous condition.

Principle – Lynskey J: '"Actual bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the prosecutor..." There was a time when shock was not regarded as bodily hurt, but the day has gone by when that could be said. It seems to me now that, if a person is caused hurt or injury resulting, not in any physical injury, but in an injury to the state of his mind for the time being, that is within the definition of "actual bodily harm".

Not Guilty RapeGuilty of ABH


© The Law Bank 12

ABH• Has been extended to hair cutting (DPP v Smith

2006))


© The Law Bank 13

DPP v Smith (2006)Case Law

Assault – actus reus – cutting hair is ABH

D caused actual bodily harm to V by cutting off her pony tail. D went to the home of his ex-partner and cut of her pony tail with kitchen scissors. The magistrates accepted that there was no actual bodily harm; the DPP appealed.

Principle – Cutting off a person’s hair amounted to ABH. Harm was not limited to injury to the skin, flesh and bones and extended to hurt and damage. That the hair cut was "dead tissue" was not relevant. Obiter: If paint or some other unpleasant substance were to be put on a victim’s hair that would to could amount to actual bodily harm.

Guilty


© The Law Bank 14

Psychiatric Injury• Injuries such as broken tooth, loss of

consciousness, minor cuts requiring medical treatment (stitches), minor fractures and extensive bruising could all be ABH.

• Now since a key ruling in 1994 psychiatric injury can be regarded as ABH.


© The Law Bank 15

R v Chan Fook (1994)Case Law

Assault - ABH - includes psychiatric harm but not emotions – escape case

D subjected V to questioning about the theft of a ring belonging to D's fiancée. D then dragged V upstairs to a room and locked him in. V feared D's return and injured himself when he fell to the ground escaping through a window. Principle – "Actual bodily harm" includes psychiatric injury but does not include emotions, such as fear or panic. ABH does not include states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition. Only expert evidence to this effect should be made to the jury regarding psychiatric injury.

Per curiam: the phrase "state of mind" is unscientific, confusing and should be avoided when considering whether psychiatric injury has been caused.

Not Guilty


© The Law Bank 16

Psychiatric Injury• Injuries such as broken tooth, loss of consciousness,

minor cuts requiring medical treatment (stitches), minor fractures and extensive bruising could all be ABH.

• Now since a key ruling in 1994 psychiatric injury can be regarded as ABH.

• This means that Miller is now inadequate as psychological injury can be quite serious


© The Law Bank 17

Psychiatric Injury Miller [1954]

Injury to the victim’s state of mind ‘for the time being’ amounted to ‘bodily harm’

Chan Fook [1994]Held that the body is not limited to flesh, skin and bones but includes organs, nervous system

and brain. Mere emotions such as fear, distress and panic are excluded

Ireland [1998]HL confirmed Chan Fook and held that psychological injury could amount to actual bodily harm

but that psychological injury should be a matter of expert evidence

Burstow [1998]HL held that a sufficiently serious psychological injury could amount to GBH

Morris [1998]In relation to psychological injury, expert evidence must be given by a psychiatrist not a general

practitioner


© The Law Bank 18

Mens Rea• The mens rea of common assaultor• The mens rea of battery

• Mens rea relates to only the first pat of the actus reus (the assault or battery)

• Therefore the mens rea of ABH is identical to the mens rea of assault or battery

• Called – HALF MENS REA

• This was established in the combined appeal cases of Savage and Parmenter (1992)


© The Law Bank 19

Savage (1992)Case Law

Assault - ABH - actus reus of ABH and mens rea of common assault - not intention or recklessness – half mens rea

The defendant poured her drink over the victim (battery). The glass slipped out of her hand, smashed and cut the victim. Her conviction under s.47 related to this injury. Her appeal against conviction was based on lack of mens rea: she argued that she neither intended injury nor foresaw that injury would be caused. Principle – The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding that mens rea of s.47 required intention or subjective recklessness in relation to the common assault or battery only. There was no requirement of intention or foresight in respect of the injury caused by the assault or battery.

S Guilty


© The Law Bank 20

Actus reus

Mens rea

(1) Common assault or battery

Intention or recklessness as to the

common assault or battery only

(2) Actual bodily harm

NOTE: There is no requirement that the

defendant intends to cause ABH or that he foresees a risk that ABH will occur as a result

of his actions


© The Law Bank 21

Objectives• Describe using authority the actus reus of s47

of the Offences against the Person Act 1861

• Describe using authority the mens rea of s47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861

• Apply the actus reus and mens rea of ABH to problem questions


© The Law Bank 23

Plenary - Fit R v Savage to this diagram

Actus reus

Mens rea

Pouring the drink over the victim’s head

Doing so deliberately

The injury caused by the broken glass

NOTE: even though defendant did not intend or foresee the injury, this was not necessary

for conviction under s.47

non fatal offences against the person

Documents

personnon fatal offences

person act

serious nonfatal offence

actus reus of battery

law bankobjectivesdescribe

law bankoccasionsoccasion

law bank1starterwhich

actus reus of s47