AR of Simple Assault
Acts / words which cause the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force; no physical contact required.
What is common Assault
Simple and physical assault together e.g. victim may raise fist (simple assault) and hit victim (physical assault).
MR of Simple Assault
Intention / recklessness as to the victim apprehending such force (recklessness is subjective).
AR of Battery (Physical Assault)
Infliction of unlawful personal force upon the victim. Can be direct or indirect and even slightest touching can be sufficient.
MR of Battery
Intentionally / recklessly inflicting unlawful force; no need to show intent or recklessness to cause injury.
A man is walking down the street on a dark winter night. He sees that one of the houses has curtains which are open. He walks into the garden and stands there, looking through the window as he is bored and wants to see if the occupants are doing anything interesting. He appreciates that he may make one or more of the occupants fearful that he may have violent intent, but carries on anyway. The woman who lives in the house notices him standing there, marches over to the window and angrily shouts “Clear off, Peeping Tom, or I’ll set the dog on you!” and closes the curtains. The woman was angry that the man had trespassed onto her property but was not in fear of the man’s presence in her garden. The man runs away, afraid of the threat posed by the dog.
**Disregarding any potential defences that may be raised, which of the following statements best describes the potential criminal liability of both the man and the occupant of the house?
**
A) They are both liable for simple assault
B) The occupant of the house is liable for simple assault. The man is not liable for simple assault.
Option B is correct. The actus reus for simple assault is to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal force. The mens rea is either intention or recklessness to do this.
The man arguably satisfies the mens rea – he foresees the risk of causing the occupants such fear, but the **actus reus is not satisfied **– we are told the occupant of the house does not fear violence, she is just angry at his trespassing on her property.
AR of ABH s.47
Simple / physical assault causing actual bodily harm.
Can psychiatric harm be included in ABH?
Yes, psychiatric harm can be included.
Give an example of ABH.
Cutting off hair; depression; split lip.
MR of ABH s.47
Intention / recklessness as to the simple/physical assault. No need to foresee harm of ABH.
AR of GBH or Wounding (s18 + s20)
Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (can include really serious psychiatric harm if clinical diagnosis).
Wounding Definition
Cutting of both layers of skin and bleeding; bruising or internal bleeding is not sufficient.
MR of GBH (s20)
Intent / recklessness to cause actual bodily harm.
What harm needs to be caused for the Mens Rea of GBH (s20)?
Actual bodily harm that does not need to be serious harm.
MR of GBH with intent (s18)
Intent to cause GBH (serious harm) or wound
Recklessness is not sufficient
Is recklessness sufficient for the Mens Rea of GBH with intent (s18)?
No.
The police have arrested a man after he pushed his former girlfriend, causing her to fall to the floor and twist her ankle. When he is interviewed by the police, the man admits that he deliberately pushed the victim but says that he did not mean to cause any injury to her and did not realise that he might do so.
Which of the following statements best describes the man’s potential liability for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
A) AR is established as man has assaulted the victim and caused hurt / injury calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim and he intended to push her
E) The prosecution will have to prove that the suspect intended to cause some injury to the victim
A is correct - references definition of ABH and correct he assaulted the victim by pushing her (physical assault) and MR is established as he deliberately pushed her
- The mens rea for ABH is the same as for the underlying assault or battery - there’s no need to prove intent or recklessness as to the injury.
- The prosecution just needs to show he intended or was reckless as to the application of unlawful force (the push).
- He does not need to foresee or intend actual injury
E is wrong as prosecution don’t have to prove intention to cause any harm - only that he intended or was reckless about the push
AR of Murder
Causing the unlawful death of a human being.
MR of Murder
An intention to kill or cause GBH (directly or indirectly).
For indirect intent of murder what is the test?
It must both be a virtually certain consequence of her actions and must foresee it as a virtually certain consequence
Isn’t enough to only foresee a small risk
Defence of Diminished Responsibility
Abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition that substantially impaired ability to understand conduct, form rational judgement, or exercise self-control.
Defence of Loss of Control
Defendant’s actions resulted from a loss of control; qualifying trigger (fear and/or anger); a person of defendant’s sex and age with normal tolerance might have reacted similarly.
Who has the evidential burden for the defence of loss of control?
Defence.
Who has the legal burden for the defence of loss of control?
Prosecution (beyond reasonable doubt).
