Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

Hi all,

Can someone please simply and clearly explain to me the differences between all the different non-fatal offences? I just can't seem to get my head around anything further than assault and battery!

Thanks in advance for any help.

Reply 1

Lady_Darkness

TECHNICAL ASSAULT (s39 OATPA)
Actus Reus: Causing "apprehension of imminent force" (can cover silent phone calls, imminence interpreted quite widely)
Mens Rea: Intentionally or recklessly causing apprehension of imminent force

BATTERY (s39 OATPA)
Actus Reus: To inflict unlawful personal force (hostile touching, can be direct or indirect force)
Mens Rea: Intentionally or recklessly applying force

ASSAULT OCCASIONING ABH (s47 OATPA)
Actus Reus: (1) To cause apprehension of imminent force AND (2) To cause ABH
Mens Rea: Intentionally or recklessly causing apprehension of imminent force

MALICIOUS WOUNDING / INFLICTING GBH (s20 OATPA)
Actus Reus: To wound or inflict GBH
Mens Rea: "Maliciously" (interpreted by case law as meaning "foresight of some physical harm", doesn't matter how much)

CAUSING GBH WITH INTENT (s18)
Actus Reus: To wound or cause GBH
Mens Rea: Malicious AND (1) with intent to cause GBH OR (2) With intent to resist arrest

Not gonna go into detail about all the different categories of Mens Rea as assuming you've got the hang of using them - Woollin; Nedrick; Cunningham and all that.
ABH and GBH can both cover psychiatric harm now, but must be recognisable (ie. not just distress or upset).

Reply 2

IslandLawlord

Thanks...am gonna print this off and swat it. thanks alot. I somehow feel UoL is gonna focus on Fraud, Theft and Sexual Offences this year in the exams next week.

Reply 3

IslandLawlord

Oh, you may wanna add that things said may be decided by the courts to be Battery, as was in the cases in Ireland and Burstow; in which menacing calls causing psychological harm was decided to be mentally injurious to the victim.

Reply 4

victress

Original post by Lady_Darkness

TECHNICAL ASSAULT (s39 OATPA)
MALICIOUS WOUNDING / INFLICTING GBH (s20 OATPA)
Actus Reus: To wound or inflict GBH
Mens Rea: "Maliciously" (interpreted by case law as meaning "foresight of some physical harm", doesn't matter how much)
.

I would like to add that Lord Diplock stated the following in the case of : '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, i.e. 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.'

So to prove that there is an actual wounding or GBH, practically no mens rea is required (it is taken that a reasonable man wont act that way)

Reply 5

Dannyhamilton12

1

Hey I appreciate that this was some years ago but i'm doing this at undergrad level, I found this playlist on youtube really helpful, it's very comprehensive for A level and is pretty good for degree level revision as well. there's a seperate video for each offence so it makes it really clear. hope it helps others to

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...g9c6vyTWB_2yJh

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

Related discussions

Articles for you