Read synoptic-cases-2009-10.pdf text version

R v Ireland, Burstow 1997


1. 2. Psychiatric harm is included in the phrase `bodily harm' Cause and inflict are not synonymous, but cover the same areas, thus it is possible to speak of `inflicting psychiatric injury'. Does not require direct or indirect physical application of force.

Prior Precedent: R v Chan Fook 1994

Following Precedent: R v Dica 2004

Meade & Belt 1823 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Clarence 1888 Draft Offences Against the Person Bill

3. An assault can consist of any

act causing the victim to apprehend an immediate application of force upon her, including silent phone calls.

Collins v Wilcock 1984


1. The touching of another person, however slight, amounts to battery. 2. Generally speaking, consent is a defence to battery 3. Implied consent is also a defence to most of the physical contacts of everyday life.

Prior Precedent: Fagan v MPC 1969

Following Precedent: Wood v DPP 2008

Cole v Turner 1707

Thomas 1984

AG's Reference No.6 of 1980

Smith 2003

JCC (a minor) v Eisenhower 1983


A wound is a break in the continuity of the whole skin i.e. all its layers.

Prior Precedent: Wood 1830

Following Precedent: R v Brown 1994

Shadbolt 1833

Waltham 1849

R v Wilson (Clarence) 1984


1. Can return a verdict of assault occasioning ABH, even where D was charged with s.20 2. Infliction of GBH contrary to s.20 without an assault being committed was possible. So, `inflict' is wider than assault, but is it as wide as cause?

Prior Precedent: R v Clarence 1888

Following Precedent: R v Ireland, Burstow 1997

R v Salisbury (Australia) 1976

R v Dica 2004

R v Mowatt (1968)


1. `Maliciously' adds nothing to s.18 OAPA as there is specific mens rea mentioned in the section [intent to do GBH] obiter 2. In s.20, maliciously is the mens rea. This means that it is enough that D should have forseen that some physical harm would come to the person, albeit of a minor character.

Prior Precedent:

Following Precedent: R v Savage, Parmenter 1992

R v Cunningham 1957

R v Roberts 1972

R v Brown 1994


1. Can only consent to harm which is `transient and trifling' (i.e. common assault and battery) 2. Confirmed that there can be exceptions to the rule on consent, on the grounds of public policy. 3. Thus, consent was not relevant to ABH or GBH as it is not part of the offence.

Prior Precedent: R v Coney 1882

Following Precedent: R v Wilson 1996

R v Donovan 1934 R v Emmett 1999 AG's Reference No 6 of 1980

R v Wilson 1996


1. It was analogous to tattooing or the `piercing of nostrils', and that was able to be consented to so was this. 2. Brown is not a blanket ban on consent to s.47, restricted to the legitimacy of S&M and consent, which were not issues here. 3. Expands on the `recognised exceptions' on grounds of public policy identified in Brown.

Prior Precedent: R v Donovan 1934

Following Precedent: R v Emmett 1999

R v Brown 1994

R v Martin 1881


1. Can `indirectly' assault or batter V. 2. D will be taken to have intended the natural consequences of what he did 3. Maliciously doesn't mean spitefully.

Prior Precedent:

Following Precedent: DPP v Khan 1990

Too old to know!!!

Haystead v CC of Derbyshire 2000

Fagan v MPC 1969


4 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate


Notice: fwrite(): send of 200 bytes failed with errno=104 Connection reset by peer in /home/ on line 531