Offences of Personal Violence - Essay Example

Running Head: Law Law Name Institution Date Offences of personal violence have a wide potential relevance in the public order area and beyond. The somewhat imperfect hierarchy of the act reflects both differences in the seriousness of injury or harm and in the mental element. ‘Actus reus’ is defined as facts which constitute to a criminal act or omission. They are usually defined by the statutory offences, for instance, killing a person by shooting (act) or mother kills her baby by not feeding it (ommission) (Lanser, Bloy, & Parry, 2000 ). A mans contribution to the Actus Reus of crime must be substantial if he is to be criminally responsible, this is illustrated in the case of R. v. Charlson[1955] W.L.R. 317; [1955]1 All E.R. 859. In this case, the accused was charged with unlawfully causing bodily harm to his son. He struck his son with a mallet. Later on, the accused was said to have been suffering from cerebral tumor. The court held that the accused had not acted on his volition (Allen, 2007). There are five offences which must be proven by peter. These offences are discussed below:- A person is not criminally liable for his acts or omission unless it is proved that he had blameworthy state of mind (mens rea) at the time of the offence. The mental element required in the statutory offences may be resolved into the categories of intension, recklessness or negligence. Strict liability is an exception to this requirement as illustrated in the case of R. v. Prince [18750 L.R.2 C.C.C. 154. In this case, the Accused was charged for abducting under 16 year child without parental authorization or consent. The accused was found guilty, given that the parliament had enacted the provision to give an absolute protection of young girls (Bollom, 2003).Common assault and battery were separate common law crimes. Section 39 of the criminal justice act 1988 stipulates offences and maximum penalties which may be imposed. Assault Assault may be defined as putting a person in fear of the application of immediate personal violence. Once the ingredients of assault or battery have been proven, no further mental element is required for the aggravated assaults as illustrated in the case of Fagan v Police commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439. In Fagan it was stated that an act could not amount to an assault. For example, D, a rapist, is in V’s kitchen holding a knife when V enters, coming face to face with V and the knife. V apprehends immediate unlawful personal violence and D, recognizing V’s fear, continues to hold the knife in the same position. Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 merely provides that‘Common assault and battery shall be summary offences and a person guilty of either of them shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.’ Battery On the other hand, battery is the application of force to the person. Actus Reus of battery consists of the infliction of unlawful personal violence upon peter. It is not however necessary for there to be technical assault for the attacker to be liable for battery. For example, if W is blind and X punches him from behind, X will be guilty of battery even though X had no apprehension of unlawful personal violence. There is no need for profusion of blood, a mere drop of blood would be sufficient as illustrated in the case of C (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331. X must inflict grievous bodily harm maliciously. Maliciously does not mean ill motive but rather it means intentionally or recklessness’. On the other hand, recklessly requires foresight of the consequence (Cunningham). Actual bodily harm Peter can sue on the offence of actual bodily harm as contained in section 47 of offences against the person act of 1861. The defendant under this section may be imprisoned to serve a jail term of five years. Peter suffered direct harm as a result of the attack. However, attack can either be direct or indirect; for instance, where the accused causes the claimant to jump out of the car. A person’s negligence may also lead to harm, as illustrated in the case of DDP v Santa-Bermudez. Here, the policemen asked the defendant if there were any sharp object inside his pocket, the accused or defendant had allowed the policeman to empty his pockets. In the process of searching, the policemen injured her finger on hypodermic needle. It should be noted that ABH did not only means the skin but also psychiatric injury. No mens rea is needed for ABH, but a casual correlation between the assault and the injury suffered (King, 19 March 2011). Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) There are basically two offences subject to Offence against the Person Act 1861 which is contained in section 20 of the act. This section states that, anyone who shall maliciously inflict any GBH upon the person, with or without weapon, shall be found guilty of the offence. Whoever is found guilty of the offence will serve a jail term not exceeding five years. Inflicting harm means breaking the top two layers of the skin as illustrated in the case of C (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331, where the defendant shot the claimant eye with an air rifle. The court held that, the claimant eye did not amount to GBH under section 20 of the act; therefore the defendant was not guilty. GBH means serious body harm as per Lord in smith. It may also psychiatric or biological injury as stated in the case of Burstow and Dica respectively. The mens rea of GBH means that the defendant intended to act recklessly thus causing harm as illustrated in the case of Mowatt. It is however unnecessary for the accused to have foreseen that his unlawful act might lead or cause physical harm as described in the section. The defendant in this case the attacker, must foresee physical harm to peter as illustrated in the case of R v Savage; Parmenter where defendant was accused under section 20 of the act, the trial having stated that the she threw the content of the beer to the claimant, and supposedly threw the glass which broke and injured the victim. The defendant accepted the intension of throwing the glass at the victim but denied the allegation of having the intension to injure or cut the victim with the same glass. The defendant was found guilty of the offence and therefore charged in the courts for assault. Maliciously causing GBH with intent Under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861states that anyone who shall unlawfully cause any GBH to any other person, with the aim of causing grievous bodily harm to another person shall be guilty of the offence. This offence attracts a maximum jail term or imprisonment for life. The actus reus of GBH is similar to that stated above, however, the mens rea has basically two elements (Dobson at el, 2011). First is the malicious act and second is the intension to do GBH to the victim. This is clearly illustrated in the case of Belfon, where the court of appeal denoted that the defendant slashed the victim using the razor blade causing severe chest and face wounds. The court of appeal stated that for GBH to amount under section 18 of the act, the claimant has to prove that the defendant had the intension to cause injuries. The indication of the defendant of foreseeing such harm would result to harm, would therefore be insufficient. Similar case showing GBH with intent is that of Morrison, where the defendant seized to be arrested by the police officer. The defendant jumped out of the window thus causing severe face injuries to the police officer. The court held that if the defendant intended to resist arrest and was reckless thus causing face injuries to the officer in charge, he would be guilty under section 18 of the act. The court nullified the conviction and stated that recklessness as per Cunningham was required. This means that the claimant has to prove that the defendant had the intension to cause bodily harm to the victim. According to CPS charging standards, there are several factors which show certain intention to carry out GBH under section 18, this includes, planned attack, purposeful selection to a particular weapon such as breaking the glass before the defendant can attack the claimant, making threats and last but not least, using weapons against the claimants head. The level of mans rea varies with respect to the crimes committed. Crimes such as assault and battery are crimes of intent. Proof of Cunningham recklessness is sufficient in mens rea. They mostly require a lower level of men rea as compared to crimes of specific intent, for instance, murder as well as theft. In Peter’s case, a lower level of mens rea is required in order to determine the possible intent of the crime caused by another party. For example in the case of R v Caldwell 1982, the defendant started a fire in the hotel where he got drunk from. An approximated number of ten guests were in the hotel when the incident occurred. Caldwell (the defendant) was charged with criminal damages by use of fire. Caldwell was reckless since it did not matter if his life as well as for those who were in the hotel at the moment was in danger. The courts did not have to provide a validated proof that his intension was to actually to commit a crime, since things speaks for itself (res-ipsa loquitor). An assault linking battery which results in harm that constitutes ABH contrary to Section 47 must be charged as a common assault, different to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, where the wound amounts to no more than a abrasion, graze, scratch, swelling, bruise and reddening of the skin or a superficial cut. The subsequent injuries should be charged under section 47: loss of tooth or teeth; multiple bruising; impermanent loss of sensory functions; broken nose, cuts requiring stitches; minor fractures; and psychiatric and biological injuries, supported by suitable expert evidence. Under Section 20 of the 1861 Act needs to be reserved for those injuries which are considered serious, this is, on a par with GBH. Wounds that should be linked with GBH include those that results in: permanent disability of sensory function; permanent disfigurement; displaced limbs or bones; injuries causing considerable loss of blood; and grievance resulting in lengthy treatment. A large number of cruelties contain offences which lower the level of mens rea. Other offences require a lower level of mens rea, this include the tort of negligence. Conclusion Peter can therefore sue under different offences depending on the degree of injuries, circumstances under which the injuries were inflicted and the outcome of the injuries suffered as a result of the attack. If the attacker is found guilty the offences, it might attract a penalty of imprisonment, depending on the offence. References Allen, M. J. (2007). Textbook on criminal law. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. King, A. (19 March 2011). PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY.Intention and Subjective Recklessness. United Kingdom: Oxford University . Lanser, D., Bloy, D., & Parry, P. (2000 ). Principles of criminal law. UK: Routledge. Dobson, P. (2011). Nutshell Criminal Law. New York: Sweet & Maxwell, Limited. Read More