Module Review Series: Criminal Law Part 4

Alice Spencer
Apr 4, 2021
4 min read

Updated: Apr 16, 2021

DISCLAIMER: all information in these module reviews is taken from our own notes and research so please do not cite this in your work.

Welcome to the fifth instalment of our Module Reviews!

Our current focus now turns to Criminal law, with this Review covering the topic of non-fatal offences against the person. This is a brief summary intended to give a basic overview of the topic for those beginning their journey into Criminal law. Throughout this Review, I have cited criminal cases as authority for much of the information given, which you can find italicised throughout.

Introduction

Non-fatal offences against the person, as the name suggests, are a number of offences that are carried out against a person without death. We can divide these into five different offences, and below I have included a pyramid diagram which ranks them in terms of severity/punishment from lowest to highest.

Assault - s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Assault = an act by with the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend the application of immediate and unlawful force.

1. Apprehension – no unlawful force or contact is actually needed to constitute assault, merely the defendant doing something that causes the victim to apprehend a battery.

In Lamb, the defendant jokingly pointed a gun at the victim and shot him by mistake. An assault could not be established here for the purposes of unlawful act manslaughter (see last week’s post) as it was unlikely that the victim actually apprehended anything.

2. Immediate – for the purposes of assault, harm needs to be apprehended in the immediate future.

In Tuberville v Savage, a rather old case, the defendant placed his hand upon his sword and said to the victim ‘if it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you.’ This did not constitute assault as the defendant’s words negated his actions – he said he would not commit an assault.

3. Unlawful force – not all unwanted physical contact will constitute this; in Collins v Wilcock, it was found that touching another to gain attention would not be considered unlawful. However, in Ireland, the defendant repeatedly made silent phone calls to the victim – this was enough to constitute assault despite the fact that it was unclear what physical contact would arise, there was an apprehension on the part of the victim.

4. Mens rea – the mens rea of assault is to intentionally or recklessly cause the victim to apprehend imminent force (see the first module review for more information on intent and recklessness).

Battery - s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Battery = any act by which the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicts or applies unlawful personal violence or force upon the victim.

1. Application/infliction – unlike assault, with battery there is no need for the victim to apprehend violence, it occurs where force is inflicted. For example, in DPP v K, the defendant put a chemical substance in a toilet hand-dryer, causing an explosion and injury to the victim. Despite the victim having not apprehended the force, it was nonetheless sufficient to cause a battery.

2. Violence/force – something as small as touching without consent/lawful excuse is enough to constitute a battery, it does not need to be hostile or rude (Faulkner v Talbot).

3. Mens rea – the mens rea of battery is to intentionally or recklessly inflict force (Savage, Parmenter).

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm – s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

1. Assault occasioning – D must commit an assault or battery which causes the victim to suffer actual bodily harm. As of Roberts, ‘occasioning’ means to cause, applying the rules of causation we covered in part one.

2. Actual bodily harm – ABH is any hurt or injury which interferes with the health or comfort of the victim (Donovan, Miller). In R(T) v DPP, a momentary loss of consciousness was enough to constitute ABH; in DPP v Smith, even cutting off someone’s ponytail was found to be sufficient. ABH also includes psychiatric injury, but there must be shown to be an identifiable clinical condition (Chan-Fook).

3. Mens rea – the defendant must have the mens rea for assault or battery, not any intention/recklessness to commit ABH itself (Savage, Parmenter).

Wounding/Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) – s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Wounding: actus reus – a wound is a break in the continuity of the whole skin (Moriarty v Brooks). Superficial cuts (M’Loughlin), the rupturing of a blood vessel (JCC v Eisenhower) or a mere scratch (Morris) will not suffice.

GBH: actus reus – GBH simply means ‘really serious harm’ – whilst this is a somewhat subjective definition, it does not need to be permanent or life-threatening (DPP v Smith). The impact of the injuries on the particular victim may be taken into account, for example in Bollom the victim being a 17-month-old child. Again, like ABH, psychological harm may constitute GBH (Ireland, Burstow), as can the transmission of HIV (Dica) and genital herpes (Golding).

Infliction – to inflict simply means to cause, applying the rules of causation covered in part one.

Mens rea – the mens rea for s.20 is to maliciously wound or inflict GBH. As of Cunningham, ‘maliciously’ is taken to mean intention or recklessness (revisit part one for more detail on the meaning of these). Furthermore, as of Mowatt, some physical harm must be foreseen, but not necessarily harm amounting to GBH.

Wounding/Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) with Intent – s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

1. Actus reus – the actus reus of s.18 is the same as that under s.20, as laid out above.

2. Mens rea – the mens rea for s.18 is to either intend GBH or intend to resist/prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any other person. This means that intention to wound is not enough (Taylor). Furthermore, as of Morrison, if a person is intending to resist arrest but recklessly causes GBH in the process, this will be enough to satisfy s.20.

Thank you for reading this weeks’ Module Review! In part five, we will go on to look at the defence of consent in the context of non-fatal offences as well as the defence of self-defence.