Scenario Question Plan – Non-Fatal Offences
Red – Legal Authority
Blue – Application
The scenario is concerned with the issue of non-fatal offences. The actions of
(defendants in scenario) must be considered in light of the Offences Against the
Persons Act 1861, relevant case law and the CPS guidelines. By defining and
explaining the relevant law, it will be possible to establish whether (defendants in
the scenario) have committed any non-fatal offences.
Identify: Assault (s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Define: The actus reus of assault is ‘any act which causes the victim to
apprehend an immediate infliction of violence’. In Smith v Chief Superintendent
of Woking Police Station (1983) the defendant, who was staring through a
window at a woman who was alone in her house at night, was charged with
assault. It was held that although he was outside, it was still ‘immediate’ enough
to satisfy the actus reus and that it was not necessary to establish what the
victim feared would happen, a general apprehension was sufficient.
Apply: Have the people in the scenario committed an act which has caused the
victim to apprehend an immediate infliction of violence? If yes, they may be
guilty of assault.
Define: The mens rea for assault is either the intention to cause such an
apprehension, or recklessness to the fact such apprehension may occur. Since R
v G and Another (2003) recklessness is nearly always taken to be subjective. So,
it must be established that the defendant themselves knew they were taking the
risk.
Apply: Did the defendants in the scenario intend to cause the apprehension of
the victim? If not, were they at least reckless in doing so? If yes, they could be
guilty of assault.
Identify: Battery (s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Define: The actus reus for battery is ‘the application of unlawful force on
another’. In Haystead v DPP (2000), where the defendant punched a woman
causing her to drop her baby, it was held that battery does not have to be direct.
Battery can also be committed by an omission, unlike assault, as portrayed in
DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003) where the defendant failed to inform the officer
searching him of a needle in his pocket. In the CPS Charging Guidelines, it states
that for a battery “injury amounts to no more than a graze, scratch, abrasion,
bruise (inc black eye), swelling, reddening of the skin or a superficial cut’.
Red – Legal Authority
Blue – Application
The scenario is concerned with the issue of non-fatal offences. The actions of
(defendants in scenario) must be considered in light of the Offences Against the
Persons Act 1861, relevant case law and the CPS guidelines. By defining and
explaining the relevant law, it will be possible to establish whether (defendants in
the scenario) have committed any non-fatal offences.
Identify: Assault (s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Define: The actus reus of assault is ‘any act which causes the victim to
apprehend an immediate infliction of violence’. In Smith v Chief Superintendent
of Woking Police Station (1983) the defendant, who was staring through a
window at a woman who was alone in her house at night, was charged with
assault. It was held that although he was outside, it was still ‘immediate’ enough
to satisfy the actus reus and that it was not necessary to establish what the
victim feared would happen, a general apprehension was sufficient.
Apply: Have the people in the scenario committed an act which has caused the
victim to apprehend an immediate infliction of violence? If yes, they may be
guilty of assault.
Define: The mens rea for assault is either the intention to cause such an
apprehension, or recklessness to the fact such apprehension may occur. Since R
v G and Another (2003) recklessness is nearly always taken to be subjective. So,
it must be established that the defendant themselves knew they were taking the
risk.
Apply: Did the defendants in the scenario intend to cause the apprehension of
the victim? If not, were they at least reckless in doing so? If yes, they could be
guilty of assault.
Identify: Battery (s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Define: The actus reus for battery is ‘the application of unlawful force on
another’. In Haystead v DPP (2000), where the defendant punched a woman
causing her to drop her baby, it was held that battery does not have to be direct.
Battery can also be committed by an omission, unlike assault, as portrayed in
DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003) where the defendant failed to inform the officer
searching him of a needle in his pocket. In the CPS Charging Guidelines, it states
that for a battery “injury amounts to no more than a graze, scratch, abrasion,
bruise (inc black eye), swelling, reddening of the skin or a superficial cut’.
