Concept
Actus Reus 1) voluntary
2) omissions
3) State of affairs/ absolute liability
Causation
1) factual ‘ but for’
Case
Hill v Baxter( outlined act that are involuntary e.g bees
or storm come through window)
Act of parliament – s6 Road traffic Act(1988) provide
breath test
Contractual duty – Pitwood – railway crossing
Duty of official position – Dytham – policeman faced to
stop a fight
Relationship – Gibbons v Proctor- (parents failed to
feed 7 yr old who died of starvation)
Duty voluntarily – Stone & Dobinson (agres to look
after unstable sister, but did not call for medical help)
Duty to minimise harm – Miller(Vagrant accidently set
fire to mattress with cigarette, but did nothing and
moved to another room & fire spread)
Winzar ( drunk in hospital taken by police to back of car
and arrested for being drunk on public highway)
Larsonneur( D deported to Ireland, but when arrived
sent back to England even though didn’t want to go and
then arrested on arrive in England)
White - son can mother poison, but she had already
died of heart attack before it took affect – no factual
causation
Pagett - D used his girlfriend as human shield and
she was shot by police - factual causation but for his
acion she would not have died
2) Legal – operating and substantial Smith –soldier stabbed in fight, but then dropped on way
and receive wrong medical care – stab wound was
operating & substantial cause = legal causation
Victims own act
Roberts – V jumped from moving car as made
unwanted sexual advances. V’ s act was foreseeable –
no break in causation – D guilty
Williams- V jumped from the car being D as allegedly
tried to take wallet – reaction sen as unforeseeable break of causation – not guilty
Third party act – medical treatment Smith – see above
not breaking chain
Cheshire- d was shot, but died later from
complications resulting from hospital conducting the
tracheotomy – although medical negligence may have
contributed gun shot still significant factor – no break guilty
Malcherek – D stabbed his wife resulting in brain
damage. Doctors decision to switch off life support
machine did not break the chain of causation.
Third party act – medical treatment Jordan – d stabbed and given a large dose of medicine
breaking chain
that he was known to be allergic too. This was seen as
abnormal medical treatment and it was ‘palpably wrong’
= broke the chain of causation 3) Thin skull rule
Blaue- V injured and declined blood transfusion on
religious grounds as Jehovah’s witness. Take victim as
find him a and s did not break causal link – D guilty
Mens Rea
1) Direct intention
2) Oblique intention/ foresight of
consequence –
3) Recklessness
Transferred Malice
Contemporaniety rule
Mohan ‘ decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within
the accused power…. the prohibited consequence
Woolin/ Nedrick ‘ it’s a virtual certainty and defendant
knows it’s a virtual certainty
Cunningham ‘ unjustifiable risk’- pulled gas meter off
wall to get money
DPP v QBD – hide acid in toilet drier V used drier and
caused burns of face = reckless
Yes - Latimer- soldier tried to hit another soldier with
belt and it accidently rebounded and hit the V( landlady)
- malicious intention could be transferred as same
offence
Yes- Mitchell- D and another man S became involved
in a scuffle in a Post Office; D pushed S, who fell onto an
elderly lady C, causing C injuries from which she later
died. Intention to assault could be transferred
No –Pembliton - D picked up a stone and threw it at the
group of men he had been fighting, missed them and
broke the window behind them. – not same offence so
intent for assault not transferred to criminal damage
Fagan – D parked his car on policeman’s foot without
knowing and was told refused to move it – although =
failure to act still assault as continuing act.
/ Thabo Meli v R - D and accomplices took V to a hut and
beat him over the head intending to kill him. They rolled his
body over a cliff to make the death appear accidental. In fact,
the victim survived both the beating and the fall from the cliff,
but died from exposure shortly afterwards.
Strict Liability
Non Fatal offences
Assault
1) Actus reus
Harrow council v Shah- selling lottery ticket to 13 year
old even tough though he was 16 – issue of social
concern - gambling
Blake/ Howell/ Gammon v Attorney General Hong Kong
Constanza –letters/ words alone can be assault
Ireland – can be silent phones/actions alone can be an
assault
Lamb- joking with revolved and didn’t realise barrel
moved – as V did not feel threatened = technically no
assault
Logdon - D showed V, a customs officer a replica gun
that would not fire in a drawer and told her he would hold
her prisoner until money owing him was repaid. Threat is
sufficient – even if means not present. Assault can be
from words or actions
Tuberville and Savage – D put his hand on his sword
and said if judges weren’t in town he would give him
2) Mens rea
Battery
1) Actus reus
2) Mens rea
S47 ABH
1) Actus reus
piece of mind. V attacked D and &d responded by taking
his eye out. V had defended himself when there had
been no assault. Words can prevent an act from being
an assault.
Venna - D struggled with the police officers who were
arresting him. D fell to the ground and lashed out wildly
with his legs, fracturing a bone in the hand of an officer.
The court laid down the standard. The offence of is
satisfied by proof that the defendant intentionally or
recklessly applied force to the person of another."
Thomas- touching clothing can be assault
Collins v Wilcock- A police officer held a women arm to
prevent her from walking away without arresting her. Any
touching may be battery and always is if there is physical
restraint.
Wood v DPP- D thrown ashtray. Officer restrained but as
not arrested him he was guilty of battery.
DPP v K- D put acid in a hand dryer. The next person to
use it was sprayed with acid. An indirect act can be the
actus reus of assault.
Martin – D placed a bar across the doorway of a theatre
and then called fire\panic followed and when people
couldn’t open the door. Can be an indirect act such as
setting a booby trap.
Haystead – D punched a woman who dropped a baby.
Battery can be committed indirectly, also example of
transferred malice.
Venna - see above
Majewski - defendant consumed alcohol and drugs in
pub then attacked people and arresting police officer.
Getting himself drunk was a reckless course of action
and is therefore meets necessary mens rea
Roberts – see above - merely an assault that lead to
actual bodily harm
Chan-Fook, - D subjected V to questioning about the
theft of a ring belonging to D's fiancée. D then dragged V
upstairs to a room and locked him in. V feared D's return
and injured himself when he fell to the ground escaping
through a window.
"Actual bodily harm" includes psychiatric injury but does
not include emotions, such as fear or panic
DPP v Santa Bermudez –D failed to tell policewomen
that had needle in his pocket- she was injured when
she searched him. An omission is sufficient for the actus
reus of battery
TV DPP- V was chased by a gang of youths- he fell D’s
kicked him until he lost consciousness. He came round
later when awoken by police officer. Loss of
consciousness when momentarily can be ABH.
DPP V Smith-D cut off his girlfriend’s ponytail without
her consent during a row. Cutting a substantial amount
of hair could amount to ABH.
2) Mens rea
S20 Wounding
1) Actus reus
2) Mens rea
S20 GBH
1) Actus reus
2) Mens rea
S18 GBH/ wounding
1) Actus reus
2) Mens rea
Savage (1991) D went to throw beer over V but glass
broke and cut V/ No need to prove intention to cause
harm, intention for assault battery (touching with beer)
enough
Eisenhower- shot in eye with pellet , but judge defined
wounding as piercing both layers of skin not a rupture
so no wounding in this case
Same as assault
Causing grevious bodily harm
DPPv Smith- In a police chase, V a PC jumped on a
carbonnet V swerved from side to side to get him off, V
was run over. ‘Grievous’ means really serious.
Burstow _- can by psychological harm = D = campaign
of harassment of v that cause psychiatric suffering
Dica - can also be biological GBH. D infected two
women with HIV. Knowing he was infected he
persuaded them to have unprotected sex; he did not
warn them that he was infected –
Mowatt – D struck v knocking him unconscious.
Intention or recklessness as to wound or GBH need not
be proven. Foreseeing (intending) ‘some harm’ that
results in serious injury is enough.
Parmenter- D injured a 3-month old baby when he threw
him up in the air and caught him again. He claimed to
have done this with older children with no injury. There is
no need to D to forsee the ‘grievous’ level of injury
Causing grevious bodily harm
See s 20
Belfon - D pushed a girl to the ground, and he and an
accomplice attacked those who came to help her. D
slashed one man with a razor, causing severe wounds to
his head and chest, and was charged with wounding
with intent.