Michaelmas 2021 Dr RC Tolley
NON-FATAL OFFENCES
AGAINST THE PERSON
INTRODUCTION
[VIDEO IA]
4 lecture ‘hours’ on this topic; 4 hours on sexual offences.
Each scheduled lecture ‘hour’ will be delivered as a ‘set’ of shorter
videos. Some ‘sets’ may be slightly longer than an hour, but in total
my videos will not exceed the remaining scheduled lecture hours.
Only minimal detail will appear on the slides; more detail is provided
on the handout
Throughout this lecture series, reference will be made to cases
involving stalking, harassment, transmission of HIV and other
sexually transmissible infections, intimate partner violence, injury
caused in the context of consensual, and sometimes non-
consensual, sexual activity. Occasional reference will also be made
to the law of sexual offences, to illustrate contrasting legal
approaches to consent in each context. Further information about
the content of specific cases is available on the sample supervision
sheet.
Structure of the lecture block
Part I:Doctrinal overview of principal non-fatal offences (lecture hour
1)
Part II: Critical assessment of consent in this context (lecture hours
2 and 3)
Part III: Critical evaluation of topics including the use of constructive
liability, the structure and hierarchy of the principal offences and
options for reform, and approaches to liability for disease
transmission and psychiatric harm (lecture hour 4)
Offences on the syllabus (n.b. poisoning offences in ss23-24 OAPA are no
longer on the syllabus)
Battery and assault (common law; CJA 1988)
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (OAPA 1861, s47)
1
,Michaelmas 2021 Dr RC Tolley
Maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) or wounding
(OAPA, s20)
Wounding or causing GBH with intent (OAPA, s18)
2
,Michaelmas 2021 Dr RC Tolley
NON-FATAL OFFENCES
AGAINST THE PERSON
PART I: A DOCTRINAL OVERVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL NON-FATAL
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
[VIDEO 1A: BATTERY AND ASSAULT]
1.1 Assault and battery
Technically two distinct offences
Often grouped together under the non-technical label ‘assault’.
o See discussion of ‘assault’ occasioning actual bodily harm below,
and DPP v Taylor and Little [1992] QB 645 (DC), 651(H)-653(A)
Summary offences charged under Criminal Justice Act 1988, s39.
PQ Tip:
When integrating the statutory provision into your analysis you could
write something like: ‘D may be liable for assault, contrary to s39 of
the CJA 1988’, or use a sub-heading, such as: ‘D’s assault on V (CJA
1988, s39)
3
, Michaelmas 2021 Dr RC Tolley
1.1.1Battery:
Actus Reus: Direct or indirect unlawful touching/application of
‘force’ (Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439
Application of force
The meaning of ‘force’ – mere touching will suffice!
See Faulkner v Talbot [1981] 3 All ER 468 at 471;
Thomas (1985) 81 Cr App R 331 at 334 (touching skirt –
nb, case involves an indecent assault on children);
Afolabi v CPS [2017] EWHC 2960 (Admin) (upper body,
and hand-to-hand contact when D tried to take papers
out of V’s grasp)
Contact can be direct or indirect
See Fagan (car); Lynsey [1995] 3 All ER 654 (spitting);
Savage [1992] 1 AC 699 (throwing a drink); Thomas
(touching clothes); Haystead [2000] 3 All ER 890 (D hit
mother, who dropped baby).
DPP v K [1990] 1 All ER 331, (acid in the hand dryer)
Facts: D, a school pupil, put acid in a hand-dryer, to hide
it. Before he could come back to clean it up, another
student used the hand-dryer and the acid blew into his
face, causing scarring.
Held: this could constitute a battery, for the purposes of
liability for assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Presumably some limit to indirect battery. Silent phone
calls obviously do not suffice (see Ireland). What about
poisoning someone’s food?
Battery can be committed by omission
See DPP v Satanana Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908
(Admin)
Facts: D had a syringe in his pocket. He was asked by a
police officer about to commit a search whether he had
any sharp objects in his pocket. He said no, and the
police officer’s hand was pricked by the needle when the
search was conducted.
Held: Battery can be committed by omission, where D is
under a duty to act. Here, D had created a dangerous
4
NON-FATAL OFFENCES
AGAINST THE PERSON
INTRODUCTION
[VIDEO IA]
4 lecture ‘hours’ on this topic; 4 hours on sexual offences.
Each scheduled lecture ‘hour’ will be delivered as a ‘set’ of shorter
videos. Some ‘sets’ may be slightly longer than an hour, but in total
my videos will not exceed the remaining scheduled lecture hours.
Only minimal detail will appear on the slides; more detail is provided
on the handout
Throughout this lecture series, reference will be made to cases
involving stalking, harassment, transmission of HIV and other
sexually transmissible infections, intimate partner violence, injury
caused in the context of consensual, and sometimes non-
consensual, sexual activity. Occasional reference will also be made
to the law of sexual offences, to illustrate contrasting legal
approaches to consent in each context. Further information about
the content of specific cases is available on the sample supervision
sheet.
Structure of the lecture block
Part I:Doctrinal overview of principal non-fatal offences (lecture hour
1)
Part II: Critical assessment of consent in this context (lecture hours
2 and 3)
Part III: Critical evaluation of topics including the use of constructive
liability, the structure and hierarchy of the principal offences and
options for reform, and approaches to liability for disease
transmission and psychiatric harm (lecture hour 4)
Offences on the syllabus (n.b. poisoning offences in ss23-24 OAPA are no
longer on the syllabus)
Battery and assault (common law; CJA 1988)
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (OAPA 1861, s47)
1
,Michaelmas 2021 Dr RC Tolley
Maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) or wounding
(OAPA, s20)
Wounding or causing GBH with intent (OAPA, s18)
2
,Michaelmas 2021 Dr RC Tolley
NON-FATAL OFFENCES
AGAINST THE PERSON
PART I: A DOCTRINAL OVERVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL NON-FATAL
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
[VIDEO 1A: BATTERY AND ASSAULT]
1.1 Assault and battery
Technically two distinct offences
Often grouped together under the non-technical label ‘assault’.
o See discussion of ‘assault’ occasioning actual bodily harm below,
and DPP v Taylor and Little [1992] QB 645 (DC), 651(H)-653(A)
Summary offences charged under Criminal Justice Act 1988, s39.
PQ Tip:
When integrating the statutory provision into your analysis you could
write something like: ‘D may be liable for assault, contrary to s39 of
the CJA 1988’, or use a sub-heading, such as: ‘D’s assault on V (CJA
1988, s39)
3
, Michaelmas 2021 Dr RC Tolley
1.1.1Battery:
Actus Reus: Direct or indirect unlawful touching/application of
‘force’ (Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439
Application of force
The meaning of ‘force’ – mere touching will suffice!
See Faulkner v Talbot [1981] 3 All ER 468 at 471;
Thomas (1985) 81 Cr App R 331 at 334 (touching skirt –
nb, case involves an indecent assault on children);
Afolabi v CPS [2017] EWHC 2960 (Admin) (upper body,
and hand-to-hand contact when D tried to take papers
out of V’s grasp)
Contact can be direct or indirect
See Fagan (car); Lynsey [1995] 3 All ER 654 (spitting);
Savage [1992] 1 AC 699 (throwing a drink); Thomas
(touching clothes); Haystead [2000] 3 All ER 890 (D hit
mother, who dropped baby).
DPP v K [1990] 1 All ER 331, (acid in the hand dryer)
Facts: D, a school pupil, put acid in a hand-dryer, to hide
it. Before he could come back to clean it up, another
student used the hand-dryer and the acid blew into his
face, causing scarring.
Held: this could constitute a battery, for the purposes of
liability for assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Presumably some limit to indirect battery. Silent phone
calls obviously do not suffice (see Ireland). What about
poisoning someone’s food?
Battery can be committed by omission
See DPP v Satanana Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908
(Admin)
Facts: D had a syringe in his pocket. He was asked by a
police officer about to commit a search whether he had
any sharp objects in his pocket. He said no, and the
police officer’s hand was pricked by the needle when the
search was conducted.
Held: Battery can be committed by omission, where D is
under a duty to act. Here, D had created a dangerous
4
