FOR ASSAULT/BATTERY ALONE AS AN OFFENCE (NOT INCLUDING S47 ABH, JUST SCROLL AND APPLY THE
RELEVANT OFFENCE).
S47 ABH
E.g. When Bob punches Andy, breaking his nose, the most likely possible charges are either S47 ABH or S20
OAPA 1861. Which charge would be pursued would depend upon the severity of the broken nose, as such
injury can amount to either ABH or GBH
D may have committed assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under S47 of The
Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The Actus Reus is an assault or battery causing ABH.
Say if A/B… If already mentioned one of A/B earlier, just say one sentence [e.g. Clearly
there is a battery as Bob applies direct force to Andy with the direct intention (aim or
purpose) to do so.
The A/B also causes the bodily harm [state harm suffered] to V.
Actual bodily harm was defined in DONOVAN, as any injuries which interferes with the
health or comfort of V. Here Ds [state injury] clearly interferes with one’s health and
comfort. Also, the injury need not to be permeant (DONOVAN) but should not be trifling
or insignificant (CHAN-FOOK). Here D has therefore caused ABH to V.
Mention why its not GBH as GBH is slightly higher (DONOVAN case says is the injury
more than insignificant?)
Factual Causation is satisfied - ‘but for’ D’s assault/battery, V would not have been
injured (WHITE or PAGETT). D’s assault/battery was the operating and substantial cause
of V’s injuries as it was significant, more than minimal contribution (SMITH), therefore
satisfying legal causation.
The Men’s Rea is intention or subjective recklessness to commit an assault/battery, not
the ABH itself (SAVAGE & ROBERTS
[HERE WRITE ASSAULT OR BATTERY MR THAT APPLIES – SEE BELOW]
IF RELEVANT: Transferred Malice .. [SEE BELOW ONES]
To conclude, D is likely to be liable.
Assault
D may have committed assault under common law and S39 of the Criminal Justice Act
1988, defined as ‘intentional or reckless act which causes a person to apprehend
immediate unlawful force’.
RELEVANT OFFENCE).
S47 ABH
E.g. When Bob punches Andy, breaking his nose, the most likely possible charges are either S47 ABH or S20
OAPA 1861. Which charge would be pursued would depend upon the severity of the broken nose, as such
injury can amount to either ABH or GBH
D may have committed assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under S47 of The
Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The Actus Reus is an assault or battery causing ABH.
Say if A/B… If already mentioned one of A/B earlier, just say one sentence [e.g. Clearly
there is a battery as Bob applies direct force to Andy with the direct intention (aim or
purpose) to do so.
The A/B also causes the bodily harm [state harm suffered] to V.
Actual bodily harm was defined in DONOVAN, as any injuries which interferes with the
health or comfort of V. Here Ds [state injury] clearly interferes with one’s health and
comfort. Also, the injury need not to be permeant (DONOVAN) but should not be trifling
or insignificant (CHAN-FOOK). Here D has therefore caused ABH to V.
Mention why its not GBH as GBH is slightly higher (DONOVAN case says is the injury
more than insignificant?)
Factual Causation is satisfied - ‘but for’ D’s assault/battery, V would not have been
injured (WHITE or PAGETT). D’s assault/battery was the operating and substantial cause
of V’s injuries as it was significant, more than minimal contribution (SMITH), therefore
satisfying legal causation.
The Men’s Rea is intention or subjective recklessness to commit an assault/battery, not
the ABH itself (SAVAGE & ROBERTS
[HERE WRITE ASSAULT OR BATTERY MR THAT APPLIES – SEE BELOW]
IF RELEVANT: Transferred Malice .. [SEE BELOW ONES]
To conclude, D is likely to be liable.
Assault
D may have committed assault under common law and S39 of the Criminal Justice Act
1988, defined as ‘intentional or reckless act which causes a person to apprehend
immediate unlawful force’.
