Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

Question 1

What is the lowest level if injury referred to in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s47?

Answer 1

‘actual bodily harm’

Question 2

What type of offence is assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

Answer 2

triable either way

Question 3

What is the maximum prison sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

Answer 3

5 years

Question 4

Where is the definition for ‘assault’ or ‘actual bodily harm’ in the Offences Against the Persons Act?

Answer 4

there is no deffiniton

Question 5

As well as there being no definition what it there no reference to in ‘assault’ or ‘actual bodily harm’?

Answer 5

mens rea

Question 6

What is the deffiniton of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

Answer 6

An assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm, with the intent to cause the victim to fear unlawful force, or to be subjectively reckless as to whether the victim fears or is subjected to unlawful force.

Question 7

What is necessary to prove for the actus reus of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

Answer 7

it is necessary to prove that there was an assault or battery and that this caused actual bodily harm

Question 8

What was said in Miller 1954 about assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

Answer 8

it was said that actual bodily harm is ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the vicitm’

Question 9

What happened in the case of Miller 1954 which is also a case under omissions for the duty which arose from a chain of events?

Answer 9

D accidentally set fire to mattress however did not stop or summon help when he woke up to stop it spreading. D was convicted of arson

Question 10

What happened in the case of T v DPP 2003?

Answer 10

D and a group of youths chased V. D kicked V, V fell unconscious momentarily and remembered nothing until woken by a police officer. D was convicted of assault occasioning Actual bodily harm

Question 11

D and a group of youths chased V. D kicked V, V fell unconscious momentarily and remembered nothing until woken by a police officer. D was convicted of assault occasioning Actual bodily harm
What case is this?

Answer 11

T v DPP 2003

Question 12

D accidentally set fire to mattress however did not stop or summon help when he woke up to stop it spreading. D was convicted of arson
What case is this?

Answer 12

T v DPP 2003

Question 13

Following the case of T v DPP 2003 what was decided?

Answer 13

that s447 can be charged where there is no injury

Question 14

As well as no injury at all, what other injuries come within s47? (3)

Answer 14

brushing, grazes and scratches

Question 15

In T v DPP 2003 what was held to be actual bodily harm?

Answer 15

loss of consciousness, even momentarily

Question 16

What was held in DPP v Smith 2006?

Answer 16

that cutting Vs hair can amount to ABH

Question 17

What happened in the case of DPP v Smith 2006?

Answer 17

D cut off Vs ponytail and hair from the top of her head without consent. Charged under s47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. Prosecution appealed and Divisional Court held that cutting off a substantial amount of hair could be ABH.

Question 18

D cut off Vs ponytail and hair from the top of her head without consent. Charged under s47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. Prosecution appealed and Divisional Court held that cutting off a substantial amount of hair could be ABH.
What case is this?

Answer 18

DPP v Smith 2006

Question 19

In DPP v Smith what did the court hold about pain?

Answer 19

it was held that physical pain was not a necessary ingredient of ABH

Question 20

Why is cutting someones hair ABH?

Answer 20

as hair is apart of the body, it comes within the meaning of ‘ABH’

Question 21

While the court in DPP v Smith held that hair could constitute as ABH, what did they emphasise?

Answer 21

that there had to be a substantial amount of hair cut from V in order for the harm to be ‘actual’

Question 22

As well as physical harm, what else is classed as ABH?

Answer 22

psychiatric injury

Question 23

In what case was it decided by the COA that psychiatric injury could be ABH?

Answer 23

Chan Fook 1994

Question 24

What did the case of Chan Fook 1994 decide?

Answer 24

that psychiatric injury could be ABH

Question 25

In Chan Fook 1994, what did the COA point out that psychiatric injury could not be in regards to ABH?

Answer 25

that ABH does not include ‘mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic’

Question 26

In what case was the decision in Chan Fook 1994 that psychiatric injury was ABH confirmed?

Answer 26

Burstow 1997

Question 27

What was decided in the case of Burstow 1997?

Answer 27

that ‘bodily harm’ in ss18, 20 and 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 must be interpreted so as to include recognisable psychiatric illness

Question 28

What happened in the case of Burstow 1997?

Answer 28

D made silent phone calls, abusive phone calls, took photos of V, sent hate mail and distributed offensive cards to their neighbours. V suffered from a depressive illness as a result. Held that psychiatric harm could be ABH following decision on Chan Fook 1994

Question 29

D made silent phone calls, abusive phone calls, took photos of V, sent hate mail and distributed offensive cards to their neighbours. V suffered from a depressive illness as a result. Held that psychiatric harm could be ABH following decision on Chan Fook 1994
What case is this?

Answer 29

Burstow 1997

Question 30

Which section in the Offences Against the Persons Act s47 is not referenced?

Answer 30

mens rea

Question 31

Why have the courts held that the mens rea for common assault is sufficient for the mens rea of a s47 offence?

Answer 31

as the essential element is a common assault

Question 32

While the mens rea of ABH is not referenced in the Act, what have the courts decided?

Answer 32

that as the essential element is a common assault, the courts have held that the mens rea for a common assault is sufficient for the mens rea of a s47 offence

Question 33

As the courts have decided that the mens rea for ABH is the same for the mens rea of a common assault, what is the mens rea for ABH?

Answer 33

mens rea for this offence requires D to intend or be subjectively reckless as to whether the victim fears or is subjected to unlawful force.

Question 34

What case demonstrates that there is no need for the defendant to intend or be reckless as to whether ABH is caused?

Answer 34

Roberts 1971

Question 35

V feared rape after D tried to make advances and take her coat off, while driving V jumped from the car and was injured. D found guilty of assault occasioning ABH even though he had not intended injury or realised there was any risk. He had intended to apply unlawful force when he touched her and this satisfied the mens rea for a common assault, guilty under s47
What case is this?

Answer 35

Roberts 1971

Question 36

What happened in the case of Roberts 1971?

Answer 36

V feared rape after D tried to make advances and take her coat off, while driving V jumped from the car and was injured. D found guilty of assault occasioning ABH even though he had not intended injury or realised there was any risk. He had intended to apply unlawful force when he touched her and this satisfied the mens rea for a common assault, guilty under s47

Question 37

Why was D guilty of s47 OAPA in Roberts 1971?

Answer 37

as because he intended to apply unlawful force when he touched V and tried to take off her coat, this satisfied the mens rea even though he did not intend ABH nor realise there was a risk of injury.

Question 38

What case confirmed the decision made in Roberts 1971?

Answer 38

Savage 1981

Question 39

What happened in the case of Savage 1981?

Answer 39

D slipped with a cup in his hand while throwing a drink at V, the glass cut V. D did not intend V to be injured nor realised there was a risk but convicted of s20 offence. COA substituted this for s47 offence. D had the intention to apply unlawful force, this was sufficient for mens rea of s47 offence.

Question 40

D slipped with a cup in his hand while throwing a drink at V, the glass cut V. D did not intend V to be injured nor realised there was a risk but convicted of s20 offence. COA substituted this for s47 offence. D had the intention to apply unlawful force, this was sufficient for mens rea of s47 offence.
What case is this?

Answer 40

Savage 1981

Question 41

What is the actus reus of assault?

Answer 41

causing V to fear immediate unlawful violence

Question 42

What does the actus reus require for an assault?

Answer 42

an act but can be by silent telephone calls (Ireland 1997) or letters (Constanza 1997)

Question 43

What is the mens rea for assault?

Answer 43

Intention of, or subjective reckless as to, cause V to fear immediate unlawful violence

Question 44

What is the actus reus of battery?

Answer 44

application of unlawful violence, even the slightest touching (Collins v Wilcock 1984)

Question 45

What is the mens rea for battery?

Answer 45

intention of, or subjective reckless as to, apply unlawful force (DPP v Majewski 1976)

Question 46

Under what section and Act is assault and battery charged under?

Answer 46

s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Question 47

What is the actus reus of assault occasioning actual boldily harm?

Answer 47

an assault or battery

Question 48

What is the consequence required from assault occasioning actual boldily harm?(3)

Answer 48

• physical harm, e.g bruising
• momentary loss of consciousness
• psychiatric harm

Question 49

What is the mens rea for assault occasioning actual boldily harm?

Answer 49

Intention or subjectively recklessness as to cause fear or unlawful violence or to apply unlawful force. (mens rea for assault or battery)