CRIMINAL LAW

TYPES

ASSAULTCOMMON ASSAULT

BATTERY

ACTUAL BODILY HARM

WOUNDING & GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM

Punishments

PUNISHMENTS—PRISON, COMMUNITY PENALTIES, FINES etc.

WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE CRIMINAL LAW?

PUNISHMENT

REDUCTION OF CRIME

REFORM & REHABILITATE OFFENDERS

PROTECT PUBLIC

REPARATION BY OFFENDERS

ELEMENTS OF A CRIME

ACTUS REUS

&

MENS REA

ACTUS REUS

• MUST be present. • Look at the definition of the crime. All elements must be proved.• Some crimes require a consequence—compare murder & dangerous

driving.• Usually a voluntary action—consider reflex action, Hill v Baxter 1958.• May be an omission. Usually no duty to act unless there is a duty of care

because of the circumstances: -1. Parental or similar relationship eg R v Gibbins & Proctor 1918, Stone &

Dobinson 1977.2. Statutory duty eg a road accident which results in injury must be

reported to the police.3. Contractual eg R v Pittwood 1902. Public duty eg police, R v Dytham

1979.4. D. created the situation eg R v Miller 1983.

CAUSATION (Fact & Law)

• Causation in Fact—

• Unbroken chain of causation.

• R v White 1910.

• “But for” rule eg R v Pagett 1983.

Causation in Law—

• Original injury was still operational. R v Smith 1959.

• The new event was reasonably foreseeable eg Pagett.

• Careless or negligent medical treatment does not usually break the chain eg R v Cheshire 1991, compare R v Jordan 1956.

• “Death” is a medical term eg R v Malcherek1981.

BREAKING the CHAIN

• Matters which may break the chain—– actions of a third party– victim’s actions eg R v Roberts 1971, R v

Williams 1992–unforeseen natural event.

• “Thin skull principle” or “take your victim as you find him”. An unknown vulnerable victim eg R v Blaue 1975.

MENS REA (MR)

Guilty mindR v Madely 1990

Consider R v Hart 2002

INTENTION

or

RECKLESSNESS

INTENTION

Intention—may be direct (specific) or oblique (indirect).

Direct or Specific intention

D specifically desires the consequences of his action.

R v Mohan 1975—D decided to bring about the criminal action.

Indirect or Oblique intention

• Knowledge that his actions will result in a certain consequence, even if he has no desire to achieve that consequence eg setting fire to a building for the insurance money, knowing the contents will also be destroyed.

• D need not intend the consequences, but he foresees that it is virtually certain to result from his actions.

• Woollin 1998 HL (manslaughter) (baby), main case—“a result foreseen as virtually certain is an intended result”.

• Cts have struggled with “intention” & have tried not to define it, but to leave it to the jury.

Recklessness

• For some crimes recklessness is sufficient MR. (Lower level MR than intention.)

• There is only SUBJECTIVE recklessness—judged against what D believed to be the case.

• Seeing an unjustified risk & continuing to take it.

• Main case—R v Cunningham 1957 H of L (gas meter).

TRANSFERRED MALICE

• If there is MR, it can transfer from one V to another.

• R v Latimer 1886 (belt)—irrelevant whether the original victim is struck or not, the malice can still transfer.

• To transfer, the malice must be for the same type of crime eg D shoots at V, but misses him & kills Y. However if he shoots at V, misses him, but knocks the head off a rare wild flower, the malice would not transfer.

• Pembliton 1874—stone thrown at a fight, missed & broke a window. Malice did not transfer because it was a different type of offence.

• R v Mitchell 1983 (P.O. queue).

AR & MR must COINCIDE

• They must occur together or around the same time.

• R v Taaffe 1983 H of L (no MR for drugs).

• Fagan v MPC 1968 (police officer’s foot)—the AR was continuing & the MR could come later.

• Thabo Meli v R 1954—attacked V & believing he was dead, they dumped his body. In fact he was alive & died later from exposure. G because AR & MR were combined in a series of acts. Continuing event.

• R v Church 1966—knocked out woman, dumped “body” in river, she drowned. Continuing event.

COMMON ASSAULT

• Historically there were 2 different offences—assault & battery.

• Assault is putting a person in fear of immediate unlawful violence.

• Battery is the actual application of unlawful force to a person.

• Lowest form of assault/battery is referred to as common assault by S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988). Covers both assault & battery.

• Summary offence (6mths max), & only used where no injury/injury is minimal.

ASSAULT

• AR—V is put in fear of immediate & unlawful violence.

• MR—the intention to put V in fear of immediate unlawful force.

• There need be NO contact. Can be by phone, e-mail, text, social media sites.

• Smith v CC of Woking Police Station 1983—assault to peer into a woman’s ground floor bedroom window late at night, when she was in her nightclothes. “Immediate”—extended.

• Ireland 1997 H of L—silent phone calls. Fear—this was an assault.

• Words alone can be an assault, but they can also take away the threat—Tubervillev Savage 1669.

BATTERY

• AR— application of unlawful force to V.

• MR— intention to apply unlawful force to V.

• Battery may be indirect eg throwing a stone, shooting a gun.

• Fagan v MPC 1968—car.

• DPP v K 1990—battery from acid in hand-dryer.

• Haystead 2000—battery to a child to hit person holding her, causing her to drop the child.

• Thomas 1985—school caretaker touching girl’s skirt—battery, same as touching the wearer.

• Application of unlawful force may be intentional or reckless eg Cunningham 1957.

ASSAULT occasioning ACTUAL BODILY HARM

• S47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. (Either way, max 5yrs)

• AR—common assault + abh results.

• MR—intention to cause fear of immediate unlawful force in a person or recklessness in not considering that a person might be put in fear of immediate unlawful force. (Same as Common Assault)

• It is a result crime—there must be abh.

• Abh is injury which is more than trivial, but less than really serious. Eg bruise, minor cuts, grazes etc. (Hospital outpatient treatment.)

ABH Cases

• Roberts 1971—reckless in his behaviour & her reaction was to be expected. G of abh.

• May be by omission—DPP v Santana-Bermudez 2003. Failed to disclose a needle in his pocket, which injured a WPC.

• Includes psychiatric harm, which is recognized as a medical condition, but in Chan Fook 1994 “fear, panic or distress” was not abh.

• Savage 1991 (beer in glass)—throwing beer was intentional, the glass was an accident, but the MR from the beer was sufficient for the offence of abh. (Need be no intention to injure)

• Ireland 1997—silent phone calls causing psychiatric injury was abh.

• Constanza 1997—harassment causing psychiatric injury was abh.

• T v DPP 2003—momentary loss of consciousness can be abh.

• Smith 2006—cut ponytail was abh.

MALICIOUS WOUNDING/INFLICTING GBH.

• S20 OAPA 1861. Triable either way. Max 5yrs.

• AR—unlawful wounding or unlawful infliction of gbh.

• MR—intention to inflict harm, or realizing there was a risk of harm but carrying on (subjective recklessness).

• There can be gbh w/o a wounding.

• Gbh means serious injury.

• D need not intend serious injury; D need only realize that there is a risk of some harm—Mowatt 1967. (Pickpocket, who beat up V when V seized him.)

GBH s20 CASES

• Parmenter 1991 H of L—throwing 3 month old baby into air, w/o realizing he could cause injury to the baby. Not gbh, but could be abh, because slight injury & no intent/recklessness as to any injury.

• Malicious means D either intends the harm or D knew the risk, but continued with the action. (Cunningham 1957).

• Burstow 1997—psychiatric harm as severe depression was gbh.

• Wounding—must be a break through all layers of the skin. JJC v Eisenhower 1983—air gun pellet in eye, no external bleeding –not a wound.

• Dica 2004—intentionally giving Aids was s20

WOUNDING/CAUSING GBH WITH INTENT

• S18 OAPA 1861. (Max life. Indictable)

• AR—unlawful wounding or unlawful infliction of gbh.

• MR—intention to inflict gbh or intention to resist arrest & causing harm in the process intentionally or recklessly.

• NB—the intention must be to cause gbh.

Cases on s18

• DPP v Smith 1961—police officer on bonnet of car, fell off & killed by another car. Gbh should be interpreted in the ordinary sense—serious harm.

• Belfon 1976—razor slash wounds to face & chest was gbh.

• Bollom 2004—consider age and health of V in deciding seriousness of the assault. Severe bruising on 17mth-old girl was gbh.

• Morrison 1989—WPC arrested D, who tried to escape & pulled her into a glass window. D realized there was a risk of injury & took the risk.