It is clear from the facts it is a case of non-fatal offences against the person. They include assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm which is sometimes abbreviated as ABH, maliciously wounds or inflicts grievous bodily harm and the last one wounding or causing grievous bodily harm. We will start examining the most serious offences which are committed by Cyril then moving to the least serious offences which are committed by Moby. It is noted that for there to have liability both
as "out-moded and unclear Victorian legislation"[1] The wording used in the act is now frequently used in everyday language which has led to differences in meaning and problems in interpreting the statute. Words such as Grievous Bodily Harm and Actual Bodily Harm are widely used, however this does not mean that the offences are easily understood or effective in dealing with violent behaviour. Some lawyers have even argued that the state of the OAPA leads to unnecessary and expensive appeals
On February 24, 1992, the appellant, Mike Chan-Fook was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The appellant denied that any physical harm was received by the victim. The victim had jumped out of the window as an attempt to escape but had received injuries. It was argued that the victim’s mental state was altered by fear and panic due to the appellant’s actions towards him. This led the victim to jump out of the window and
Defences of Assault and Battery In most crimes there are always defences to the offence that has been committed, for example, if one is charged with murder, then a defence of either provocation or diminished responsibility can be raised. There are other defences such as mistake or intoxication. In this case one will discuss when the defence of consent can be used against a criminal charge. For this essay we
intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another shall be guilty of an offence. Consent to harm is not usually not a defence to a charge of assault causing harm under section 3 or causing serious harm under section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. However, consent to harm or serious harm may be a defence if the activity leading to that harm does not offend against public policy. If the consent is given to the risk of farm or serious harm with involves sadomasochistic sexual
of the offence. She is liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Section 47 Offences Against the Person Act) and murder. Murder is a common law offence that requires proof that the defendant caused the death of the victim with the requisite mens rea. On the facts, there is no doubt that Chrisitne caused Victor's death. The mens rea of murder is satisfied by the prosecution proving that Christine intended to kill or intended to cause grievous bodily harm at the time of the act (R v Moloney
Therefore any injury sustained by a child which is serious enough to warrant a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm cannot be considered to be as the result of reasonable punishment. . Junaid please try to write children and young people and not “children” ABishop 9.5.16 The main requirement of the Children Act was to ensure all agencies worked
an offence when a person maliciously wounds or causes grievous bodily harm with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The injury to I’s ear would constitute a wound. As a wound has been defined in JJC v Eisenhower as that the inner and outer skin must be broken. Further blood must spilt even one drop is enough. This is satisfied on the fact as I was bleeding. The mens rea for S 18 is intention to cause grievous bodily harm. Being a specific intent crime it has to be proof that the defendant
conclusion to be reached as to whether Harry should be charged in accordance with s47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm ('ABH'). For conviction, prosecutors would demonstrate the actus reus and mens rea of ABH, in this case that Harry assaulted and caused the actual bodily harm to Rob and reckless or intended the assault. Lord Hope in R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45, stated that "prosecution does not
there are between the three most commonly prosecuted offences (under sections 18, 20 and 47) they are not clearly spelt out. For example section 20 which is ‘maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm’ is seen to be more serious than section 27 ‘assault occasioning actual bodily harm’ however the maximum penalty ‘five years’ is the same for both offences. The OAPA 1861 has been in force for over 150 years, it has been frequently amended over the years. Despite a history of criticism
convicted of several accounts of assault upon Ms Ishmal and an assault towards child A. These dates consist on June 2004, November 2006 and January 2011. Assault is when the principal in the first degree, in this case Mr Emami, has caused a physical attack on or threatening to cause a physical attack towards the plaintiff, in this case Ms Ishmal. There are various types of assault in general, mainly consisting on: aggravated, common, incident and physical. But types of assault mentioned in this civil case
Crime Act 2015. While Talia may be guilty of assault under section 20 or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861. The offence of controlling or coercive behaviour was created in 2015 after increasing political concern to strengthen the criminal law’s response to domestic abuse. In a report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, it was reported that domestic abuse makes up around eight percent of all crime; one third of assaults with injury and it was estimated that there
18. Woody Harrelson. He portrayed Woody Boyd in the 1985 television sitcom Cheers, and also played Haymitch Abernathy for The Hunger Games series. But Harrelson has his own fair share of scandals as well that shattered our faith in humanity. In 1982, prior to his breakthrough in Cheers, Harrelson was arrested for disorderly conduct when he was seen dancing mid-street. He also has a record of resisting arrest, yet he was able to bail out himself from it and avoided jail. 19. Marilyn Manson. He may
Intoxication along with insanity, mistake one of the basic principles of English Criminal law that the defendant (D) should be held liable only where she is of sufficient capacity. Professor Hart famously explained this term as “a person is only to be blamed if he has the capacity and fair opportunity to change or adjust his behaviour to the law”. It is thought that the majority of non fatal offence is committed when the accused was intoxicated. In some circumstances a D who is heavily intoxicated
evidence base to inform practice, SPJ appears to be the most appropriate as only a detailed and flexible risk assessment process that takes into account the different forms of potential damage can provide a basis for management that reduces the potential harm to the victim and the stalker both (Mullen et al, 2006). Further research into stalking risk factors and comprehensive assessment tools will aid the development of more accurate and detailed procedures specific to the assessment of risk in stalking