0115 966 7966 Times 10:30 - 17:00 (GMT)
Place an Order
Instant price

Get help with your work from Parallelewelten

Get it right the first time & learn smarter today

Place an Order

Published: Wed, 07 Mar 2018

CASES ON NON-FATAL OFFENCES

1. COMMON LAW ASSAULT AND BATTERY

Logdon v DPP [1976] Crim LR 121.

The defendant, as a joke, pointed a gun at the victim who was terrified until

she was told that it was in fact a replica. The court held that the victim had

apprehended immediate physical violence, and the defendant had been at least

reckless as to whether this would occur.

Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station [1983] Crim LR 323.

The defendant had terrified a woman occupying a ground floor flat by staring

in through the windows at her. The Divisional Court was satisfied that even

though the defendant was outside the building there was evidence to suggest that

the victim was terrified by the prospect of some immediate violence. It was not

necessary for the prosecution to establish precisely what the victim feared

would happen; a general apprehension of violence was sufficient.

Tuberville v Savage (1669) 2 Keb 545.

The defendant placed his hand on his sword hilt and told the victim, “If

it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you.” This was

held not to be an assault. The words accompanying the action (of placing the

hand on the sword) clearly demonstrated that because the assize judge was in

town, the defendant was not going to use his sword. There could thus be no

apprehension of immediate force.

2. ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM

R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95.

The defendant gave a lift in his car, late at night to a girl. He made

unwanted advances of a sexual nature to her which alarmed her. She feared he

intended to rape her and as the car was moving, she opened the door and jumped

out suffering grazing and concussion. The defendant was convicted under s47 and

Stephenson LJ stated that the test for causation in law was to ask whether the

result was the reasonably foreseeable consequence of what the defendant was

saying or doing.

R v Constanza [1997] Crim LR 576

The defendant was convicted of occasioning actual bodily harm. The victim was

a female ex-colleague. Between October 1993 and June 1995 he followed her home

from work, made numerous silent telephone calls, sent over 800 letters,

repeatedly drove past her home, visited her against her expressed wishes, and on

three occasions wrote offensive words on her front door. In June 1995 the victim

received two further letters which she interpreted as clear threats. She

believed that he had “flipped” and that he might do something to her

at any time. In July she was diagnosed as suffering from clinical depression and

anxiety. It was the doctor’s view that the defendant’s actions had caused this

harm.

The Court of Appeal held that the issue before the Court was whether it was

enough if the Crown have proved a fear of violence at some time not excluding

the immediate future. In the Court’s view it was. It was an important factor

that the defendant lived near the victim and she thought that something could

happen at any time. The judge was entitled to leave to the jury the question

whether or not she had a fear of immediate violence, and the jury were entitled

to find that she did. The Court rejected the defence submission that a person

cannot have a fear of immediate violence unless they can see the potential

perpetrator. It rejected a further submission that an assault could not be

committed by words alone without a physical action. The indictment made it clear

that the assault relied on was that constituted by the last letter.

3. MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING OR MALICIOUSLY INFLICTING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM

R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54.

The defendant blocked the exit doors of a theatre, put out the lights in a

passageway, and shouted ‘Fire!’ as the theatre-goers were leaving the

performance. In the ensuing panic, many were severely injured by being crushed

against the locked doors. The defendant was convicted under s20 and appealed.

His conviction was confirmed and it is implicit in the decision that the

indirect nature of the way in which the defendant’s acts had caused the harm

presented no bar to liability.

R v Wilson [1984] AC 242.

The defendant motorist had been involved in an argument with a pedestrian,

which culminated in the defendant punching the pedestrian in the face. Lord

Roskill stated:

“In our opinion, grievous bodily harm may be inflicted… either where

the accused has directly and violently “inflicted” it by assaulting

the victim, or where the accused has “inflicted” it by doing

something, intentionally, which, although it is not itself a direct application

of force to the body of the victim, does directly result in force being applied

violently to the body of the victim, so that he suffers grievous bodily

harm.”

R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421.

The defendant was convicted under s20 following an attack he had carried out

on a police officer, during which he had rained blows on the officer’s face and

pushed him roughly to the ground. Regarding the term ‘maliciously’ Lord Diplock

stated:

“In the offence under section 20… the word “maliciously”

does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or

other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of

causing some physical harm to some other person… It is quite unnecessary that

the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm

of the gravity described in the section, ie a wound or serious physical injury.

It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some

person, albeit of a minor character, might result.”

DPP v Parmenter [1991].

The defendant had caused injury to his young baby by tossing him about in a

way which would have been acceptable with an older child, but not with one so

young. He did not realise that he might cause harm by this action. The House of

Lords held that he could not be liable under s20 as he had not foreseen the risk

of any harm. It was not necessary under s20 that he foresee the grievous bodily

harm which must be caused, but the defendant must foresee that he might cause

some harm. An alternative verdict under s47 was substituted.

R v Sullivan [1981] Crim LR 46.

The defendant, who had swerved his car towards a group of pedestrians

intending to scare them was acquitted of a charge under s20, when he lost

control of the vehicle and subsequently collided with the pedestrians causing

injury. As he had only foreseen the risk of ‘psychic harm’ his liability was

reduced to s47.

R v Belfon [1976] 1 WLR 741.

The defendant had slashed the victim with a razor causing severe wounds to

his face and chest. The Court of Appeal held that in order to establish the

offence under s18 it was essential to prove the specific intent. References to

the defendant foreseeing that such harm was likely to result or that he had been

reckless as to whether such harm would result, would be insufficient.


To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Наша организация предлагает купить диплом вуза недорого с доставкой.
Мы предлагаем заказать и купить диплом училища в любом городе.
подробнее