Criminal Law: Assault and Battery

- s.39 of Criminal Justice Act 1988
- Assault = 6 months
- Battery =

- act/words that cause victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence
- E.g shaking your fists at someone

The force threatened must be unlawful and immediate - 'immediate' does not mean instantaneous, but IMMINENT

Even silence can amount to assault

Words can be verbal OR written

Words indicating there will be no violence might prevent an act from being an assault

intention to cause another fear immediate unlawful personal violence, or subjective recklessness as to whether such fear was caused

- (R v Mohan) = Intention is defined as a decision made to bring about the prohibited consequence
- (R v Cunningham) = Recklessness is defined as an unjustifiable risk

Battery is defined as touching of another with hostile intent, or in other words any intentional touching outside the scope of what is normally acceptable (Collins v Wilcock)

application of some force, e.g scratching a police officer

Common assault can be committed by an indirect act

intention to apply unlawful physical force, or subjective recklessness as to whether such force will be applied

- s.47 Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861
- max = 5yrs

any hurt or harm calculated to interfere with the health or comfort (R v Miller)

- an assault or battery occasioning the injury
- e.g bruises, scratches, broken nose and psychiatric injury (although CPS are unlikely to prosecute bruises as ABH)

The injury need not be permanent, but should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant

Losing consciousness, even momentarily, can constitute ABH

ABH applies to all parts of the body, including hair

intention or subjective recklessness as to causing fear of unlawful violence or of applying force

Intentionecklessness should be about the assault or battery, NOT the injury

- s.18 and s.20 of OAPA 1861
- Max sentence of s.20 = 5yrs in prison
- Max sentence of s.18 = Life in prison

- really serious harm, including serious psychiatric harm (R v Burstow)
- E.g fractured skull, broken bones, serious psych harm

- requires a break in the continuity of the skin, and there must be a breach in the whole of the skin, not rely the outer layer (JCC v Eisenhower)
- E.g causing an injury when avoiding the course of arrest.

- to cause/inflict GBH or a wound
- Inflict just means cause, and psychiatric injury counts as bodily harm (R v Burstow)

Victim's age and health are relevant in deciding whether the injury amounts to GBH

Transmission of diseases or STIs also count as bodily harm

D must intend to cause another person some harm, or be subjectively reckless as to whether he suffers some harm (Parmenter)

Specific intention to cause grievous bodily harm (ie serious harm), OR resisting/preventing arrest.

It is not necessary to show that D had the Mens Rea in relation to the level of harm inflicted - it is sufficient that they intended or could foresee that SOME harm would result

- Factual causation = the prohibited consequence/victim's injury would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's actions
- 'But for' test = but for D's act, would the prohibited consequence have occurred? (R v White)
- Defendant's actions need not be the sole/main cause, as long as it was a cause that "contributed significantly"

- Legal causation = the defendant's act must be the substantial and operative cause of the victim's injury
- Substantial = significant, considerable (not trivial)
- Operative = still having effect (but doesn't need to be the sole/main cause)

- The defendant's act does not need to be the main cause, as long as it was more than a 'slight or trifling link' (R v Kimsey)

You must take your victim as you found them (R v Blaue)

- Definition = something that breaks the chain of causation, relieving the defendant of responsibility for the prohibited consequence.

- naturally occurring events = can break chain
- acts of 3rd parties = can only be broken if D was NOT substantial + operative cause
- medical treatment = does not usually break chain

It ONLY breaks the chain of causation if:
1. The treatment is so INDEPENDENT of the defendants act
and 2. Is so SIGNIFICANT in causing the death, that the defendants act becomes insignificant. (R v Jordan)

The chain of causation will only be broken if the victim's act was 'so daft' as to be unforeseeable (R v Roberts).