Non-Fatal Offences
A stab wound. Touching somebody on the arm. Smacking someone around the head with a cricket ball. These are contact with the body, but also do not have to cause death. Murder is when there is a death through the defendant's actions. Here we are concerned with non-fatal offences; when this contact causes fear or injury but doesn't result in death. This area of law has lots of case law but mostly comes from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
A stab wound. Touching somebody on the arm. Smacking someone around the head with a cricket ball. These are contact with the body, but also do not have to cause death. Murder is when there is a death through the defendant's actions. Here we are concerned with non-fatal offences; when this contact causes fear or injury but doesn't result in death. This area of law has lots of case law but mostly comes from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Common Assault
Common Assault is the collective name given to the two separate charges of Assault and Battery. The two offences come from s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. Assault is commonly mistaken for contact when the legal term is only the fear. Battery is the force which we will look at in detail. If you see the words 'common assault' then it is talking about either an assault or battery. These two offences are crucial for ABH as well as these need to be proved for an ABH conviction.
Assault and battery both carry a sentence of a maximum of 6 months imprisonment and a maximum of £5000 fine.
Common Assault is the collective name given to the two separate charges of Assault and Battery. The two offences come from s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. Assault is commonly mistaken for contact when the legal term is only the fear. Battery is the force which we will look at in detail. If you see the words 'common assault' then it is talking about either an assault or battery. These two offences are crucial for ABH as well as these need to be proved for an ABH conviction.
Assault and battery both carry a sentence of a maximum of 6 months imprisonment and a maximum of £5000 fine.
Assault - s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
The actus reus of assault is to place somebody in fear of imminent unlawful personal violence. There is no need for physical contact, as the threat of violence could come from words. In Wilson (1955), the defendant said 'get out the knives', which meant the words placed others in fear of imminent violence. In Tuberville v Savage (1669), words negated an assault; what he actually said showed that he was not about to carry out violence, so there was no assault. In Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police (1983) the defendant stared through a window at the victim. The case states that there can be no assault if the defendant is unable to carry out the threats of violence. In this case, the victim believed that he could and was placed in fear of imminent violence. He was therefore guilty. This established the principle that the defendant must be obviously able to carry out their threat. In R v Ireland (1997), the defendant made repeated silent phone calls. It was deemed that silence could amount to an assault because the actions placed someone in fear of imminent personal violence. Furthermore, R v Constanza (1997) showed that the threat of violence had to be imminent. Once the letters became aggressive and of a violent nature, the courts said there was an assault. The mens rea of assault is to intentionally or recklessly place someone in fear of imminent personal violence. Intention or recklessness here is the same principle as Mohan (1975), Woollin (1998) and Cunningham (1957). to be reckless, the defendant has to be aware that the actions or words could cause the victim to fear imminent violence. |
Battery - s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
The actus reus of a battery is the application of force without consent and without lawful excuse. The application of force can be as little as touching someone on the arm, or hitting them with a baseball bat, or running them over with a car. As long as there is physical contact that is not consented to or allowed by law then there will be the actus reus of battery. In R v Thomas (1985), the courts stated that there does not need to be any harm or injury suffered for a battery to be present. This case is where there was touching of the hem of a skirt. Furthermore, in R v Martin (1881) we seen an indirect application of force when the defendant barricaded the doors at the Theatre Royal and escaping patrons were injured in the panic. Fagan v MPC (1968) is a very important case because it shows a battery that is caused by a continuing act. The defendant reversed on to the foot of a police officer. Once he realised and refused to move it, the actus reus and mens rea were occurring at the same time, so there was a battery. In DPP v K (a minor) (1990), there was an indirect battery when the boy left acid in a hand dryer. He panicked and left it and the courts said he was going to go get it out later so he was aware it was risky to leave in there. Haystead v DPP (2000) is a case where a man punches a woman holding a child. She drops the child who is injured and the courts say that the battery did not require direct infliction of violence. The force was again applied indirectly. The mens rea of battery is the intentionally or recklessly apply unlawful force without consent. R v Venna (1975) confirmed that the mens rea of battery can be either intention or recklessness. |
ABH - s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
It is important to fully understand assault and battery before looking at ABH. This is the crime that needs either a technical assault or battery to occur before an ABH offence can be proved. The maximum sentence for ABH is 5 years imprisonment.
The actus reus of actual bodily harm is that an assault or battery has occurred that has caused actual bodily harm. So going back to the previous example, hitting somebody with a baseball bat is a battery, but when this battery causes bruising or bleeding then there will be actual bodily harm.
There we can see that most actual bodily harm cases are injuries that are minor or temporary. Things likes broken bones, loss or breaking of a tooth or teeth, temporary loss of sensory functions, extensive or multiple bruising, a displaced broken nose, minor fractures, psychiatric injury that is more than fear or panic. These are all examples that are actual bodily harm.
The mens rea of ABH is to intentionally or reckless commit an assault or battery. The mens rea is not to intentionally or recklessly cause ABH, as many people say mistakenly, but only to intend the initial actions. The only difference between an assault or battery and an ABH is that there has been some form of actual bodily harm suffered by the victim.
It is important to fully understand assault and battery before looking at ABH. This is the crime that needs either a technical assault or battery to occur before an ABH offence can be proved. The maximum sentence for ABH is 5 years imprisonment.
The actus reus of actual bodily harm is that an assault or battery has occurred that has caused actual bodily harm. So going back to the previous example, hitting somebody with a baseball bat is a battery, but when this battery causes bruising or bleeding then there will be actual bodily harm.
- Donovan (1934) - it was said that actual bodily harm must be 'more than merely transient and trifling'
- Miller (1954) - 'bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort' of the victim.
- Chan-Fook (1994) - it was said that 'the word "harm" means injury. The word "actual" indicates the injury should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant.'
- T v DPP (2003) - loss of consciousness momentarily is enough to constitute actual bodily harm.
There we can see that most actual bodily harm cases are injuries that are minor or temporary. Things likes broken bones, loss or breaking of a tooth or teeth, temporary loss of sensory functions, extensive or multiple bruising, a displaced broken nose, minor fractures, psychiatric injury that is more than fear or panic. These are all examples that are actual bodily harm.
The mens rea of ABH is to intentionally or reckless commit an assault or battery. The mens rea is not to intentionally or recklessly cause ABH, as many people say mistakenly, but only to intend the initial actions. The only difference between an assault or battery and an ABH is that there has been some form of actual bodily harm suffered by the victim.
s.20 GBH or s.20 Wounding - Offences Against the Person Act 1861
s.20 creates two separate offences. GBH is grievous bodily harm, whereas the offence of wounding is where the skin is pierced, like a stab wound. In both offences, there need to a consequence of a wound or grievous bodily harm.
The actus reus of s.20 is to inflict GBH or wounding. In R v Savage (1991) the defendant threw a pint of beer over the victim, but the glass slipped out of her hand and cut the victim's hand. She did not mean to do this or predicted it would happen so she was not guilty, but it is an example of grievous bodily harm. DPP v Smith (1961) defines grievous bodily harm as 'really serious injury'. R v Saunders also shows it is 'serious harm'. In R v Dica (2004) the issue of recklessness is also touched upon with transfer of sexual offences. This was inflicting of GBH when a man had unprotected sex with two females knowing that he had HIV.
The mens rea of s.20 offences is that the defendant intended to cause some harm or was reckless as to causing some harm, with foresight of harm. In R v Parmenter (1991) the courts established that you need foresight of harm for s.20 offences. This means that the defendant needs to foresee the harm that the victim suffered.
The essence of wounding is that there needs to be a break in the continuity of the whole skin. In JCC v Eisenhower (1983), there were two boys who shot a pellet from an air pistol. It hit the victim in the eye but it did not pierce the skin. There was bruising on the eyelid but there was no blood. The courts stated that this was not a wound because 'there needs to be a break in the continuity of the skin.'
s.20 creates two separate offences. GBH is grievous bodily harm, whereas the offence of wounding is where the skin is pierced, like a stab wound. In both offences, there need to a consequence of a wound or grievous bodily harm.
The actus reus of s.20 is to inflict GBH or wounding. In R v Savage (1991) the defendant threw a pint of beer over the victim, but the glass slipped out of her hand and cut the victim's hand. She did not mean to do this or predicted it would happen so she was not guilty, but it is an example of grievous bodily harm. DPP v Smith (1961) defines grievous bodily harm as 'really serious injury'. R v Saunders also shows it is 'serious harm'. In R v Dica (2004) the issue of recklessness is also touched upon with transfer of sexual offences. This was inflicting of GBH when a man had unprotected sex with two females knowing that he had HIV.
The mens rea of s.20 offences is that the defendant intended to cause some harm or was reckless as to causing some harm, with foresight of harm. In R v Parmenter (1991) the courts established that you need foresight of harm for s.20 offences. This means that the defendant needs to foresee the harm that the victim suffered.
The essence of wounding is that there needs to be a break in the continuity of the whole skin. In JCC v Eisenhower (1983), there were two boys who shot a pellet from an air pistol. It hit the victim in the eye but it did not pierce the skin. There was bruising on the eyelid but there was no blood. The courts stated that this was not a wound because 'there needs to be a break in the continuity of the skin.'
s.18 GBH or s.18 Wounding - Offences Against the Person Act 1861
The actus reus of s.18 offences is to cause GBH to any person or to wound any person. The same cases apply to the actus reus of s.18 GBH and the same principles apply to wounding. The big difference between the two is the mens rea.
The mens rea of s.18 offences is the defendant intended to wound or cause GBH. In R v Belfon, the court said that the mens rea for s.18 was only specific intent to do really serious harm. There is no recklessness allowed in this crime, as it is about the defendant committing GBH and intending to cause this serious level of harm.
The actus reus of s.18 offences is to cause GBH to any person or to wound any person. The same cases apply to the actus reus of s.18 GBH and the same principles apply to wounding. The big difference between the two is the mens rea.
The mens rea of s.18 offences is the defendant intended to wound or cause GBH. In R v Belfon, the court said that the mens rea for s.18 was only specific intent to do really serious harm. There is no recklessness allowed in this crime, as it is about the defendant committing GBH and intending to cause this serious level of harm.