Objective Notes: W201 – Individual & State
UNIT 22 – MANUAL THREE
ASSAULTS
1 A R – non-fatal offences against the person
COMMON LAW OFFENCES
Common assault - Apprehension by victim of immediate personal violence & this may result from silent phone calls (R v Ireland).
Battery – Inflicting the violence, doesn’t have to be more than unlawful touching & may be indirect (DPP v K).
OFFENCES UNDER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 (OAPA)
S.47 (ABH) – Common assault/ battery causing ABH, doesn’t have to be serious harm & may include psychiatric injury (R v Chan-Fook).
S.20 (Wounding/ inflicting GBH) – Wounding = breaking both layers of skin
(Moriarty v Brookes) / causing GBH = really serious harm (DPP v Smith).
S.18 (Wounding/ causing GBH, with intent) – Wounding/ causing GBH.
2 M R re above
COMMON LAW OFFENCES
Common assault - Intention/ reckless to cause apprehension by victim of immediate personal violence.
Battery – Intention/ reckless to inflict violence.
OFFENCES UNDER OAPA
S.47 (ABH) –

Intention/ reckless to commit common assault/ battery;
 Pros doesn’t have to prove intention/ reckless re causing any harm.
S.20 (Wounding/ inflicting GBH) –

Intention/ reckless to cause some harm;
 Pros not required to prove intention/ reckless to wound/ cause GBH – foresight of any harm, even if minor, sufficient.
S.18 (Wounding/ causing GBH, with intent) –

Intending GBH; or

Intending resist/ prevent lawful arrest AND intention/ reckless re harm being caused;
Page 1

Objective Notes: W201 – Individual & State

Unless resist arrest intention is there, there must be intention to cause GBH – intention to wound/ reckless not sufficient.
3 Differentiation between the offences
Sources of law –

Common assault & battery are common law offences;

Others are statutory.
Mode of trial –

Common assault & battery are summary offences;

Offences under s.47 & s.20 are triable either way;
 Offences under s.18 are indictable only.
Sentencing –

Common assault/ battery = max 6 months;

S.47/ s.20 = max 5 years;

S.18 = max life.
In overview –
 Sliding scale of seriousness dependent on – o Harm caused – severity of injury; & o Def’s M. R.

OAPA – covers the more serious assaults & distinguishes severity on M R factors – o S.18 – where def intends/ causes really serious harm; o S.20 - where def causes serious injury but may have been reckless rather than intentional.

Result to victim is same but offence for which there is liab differs;

The result & MR factors reflect it being more just for greater punishment where either – o More serious harm is caused; or o Conduct is intentional rather than reckless.
Considerations re conduct –

A R varies in severity from gestures/ words in common assault to inflicting wounding/ GBH in s.18 & s.20;

Degree of harm varies from unlawful touching (without any injury) in battery to really serious physical/ psychiatric harm in ss.18/20.
Considerations re mental state –

Generally, with all offences there must be either intention or Cunningham
(subjective) recklessness as to result except that in s.18 there must be either
Page 2

Objective Notes: W201 – Individual & State specific intention to cause GBH or to resist/ prevent lawful arrest coupled with intention/ recklessness to cause some harm;

With common assault, there is no requirement that def intended or was reckless as to harm but only that he intended/ was reckless that victim be aware of the threat of violence;
 Similarly in s.47 so long as ABH is inflicted together with proof of M R for common assault/ battery, it is not necessary to establish that def intended or foresaw risk of harm;

But in s.20 it has to be proved that def intended or foresaw some harm – albeit not the gravity of the actual harm;

And in s.18 there must be intention to cause GBH & not recklessness as to same except where there is intention to avoid/ resist arrest where recklessness as to some harm resulting is sufficient.
4 Establish crim liab in factual scenarios
**** See detailed applications of A R & M R requirements in Consolidation Activity
(M3 Pp 171 – 172 ***
5 Reform
Current position:

Current law = confused/ complicated;

Many calls for update/ simplification;
 Draft Crim Law Bill follows Crim Law Revision Committee proposals.
Proposals:

Law should be robust, clear & well understood;

Where unclear & uncertain, this creates injustices, unfairness & makes courts’ work more difficult;
 New offences proposed enable courts to deal with violence effectively & for law to be clear & in modern language so that ‘legal gymnastics’ not required to deal with modern offences under Act dating from 1861 – o Using cause rather than inflict throughout Bill avoids distinguishing between inflict & cause; o Cause also eliminates need for proving common assault/ battery in more serious offences; o Injury is defined to include victim’s mental health:

This recognises stalking;

Also that psychiatric harm is on par with physical harm.
 Proposed bill neither replaces all common law offences nor fully codifies law;

Rather replaces outdated OAPA offences with coherent new offences;

Not intended to radically alter operation of law or make it tougher or more lenient - aims are clarity & ease of use;

Transmission of disease – o Law Commsn recommended crim liab for intentional/ reckless transmission;
Page 3

Objective Notes: W201 – Individual & State o But crim law is for behaviour wrong in intent & deed; o LC’s proposals would have rendered any transmission, whether intentional or reckless, crim liable but said such pros would only be appropriate in the most serious cases; o But Govt felt that reckless transmission of minor disease should not be criminalised:

May discriminate against HIV positive, Aids & those carrying disease;

May be discouraged from seeking medical help because of fear of pros. o However, govt did not wish to exclude pros on all transmissions – society should be able to punish evil conduct; o Must be able to punish those who transmit serious illness to others with intent to cause harm – this is violence against the person; o Should be crim liab where proved beyond reasonable doubt that def intended to transmit disease to cause serious illness but not for unintentional/ reckless acts or for transmitting minor disease; o Proposals here maintain present law but, because it is largely untested, clarify law & make it apply only to most serious/ culpable conduct; o Cl 15 includes intentional transmission of disease into Cl 1(intentional serious injury) but not for any other purpose & effect = crim liab only incurred by those who transmit disease with intent to cause serious injury.
Comment on reform (Smith)

Fundamentals - intention, recklessness etc - stat defined;

But exclusion of murder creates 2 meanings of intentionally causing serious injury which is M R for both murder & stat offences – o Nedrick rule – evidence of intention for murder; & o Stat definition – rule of law.

Stat definition may become overall rule through appellate decisions & Parl could avoid any controversy by making stat definition apply to murder as well;

Only intentional transmission of serious disease culpable but Ireland &
Bristow indicate that reckless intention is an offence;

Whilst govt does not wish to impose crim liab where transmission occurs in normal everyday activities, this is questionable where, for example, def had
AIDS, knew this but transmitted it to victim who did not know def had condition;

Victim would consider this a serious offence & if were to die as a consequence it’s hard to not see this as reckless manslaughter;
 Bill clearly re-states common law assault/ battery which should now be repealed if the bill is enacted – o Def guilty if he –
 Intentionally/ recklessly applies force/ impacts on another’s body; or

Intentionally/ recklessly causes the other to believe such force/ impact to be imminent.
Page 4