OAPA 1861 (common Law)

5-offences Offense against person

Against autonomy violence

Common Assault: involves no touching

1. Apprehension-------inflict
2. Immediate
3. Unlawful violence
MR-------intention or recklessness

2) Battery----- no bruise, or cut or injury

1. Infliction----touching
2. Immediate/unlawful violence
3. Hostility----touching can be hostile or unhostile
MR------ intention or recklessness
3) Section. 47------assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Injury more than transient or trifling
Deals with discomfort of victim/temporary
MR----intentionally or reckless

4) S.20
Actus Reas of S 20

Wounding-----flow of blood GBH---(internal injury)

Break in skin continuation no break

MR-----intention/recklessness

1
5) Section 18.
AR------same as section 20
Prevention of arrest-----police constable will be involved
MR----intention only not recklessness

Defense
Consent

Public policy Fraud

It should benefit in some way

OAPA
Non-fatal offenses against person involves two type of crime.
1. Crime of violence such as section 18. 20 & 47. OAPA 1861. Under which physical
harm is being caused to the victim.
2. Crime against autonomy involves crimes where the defendant undesirably interfere
with victim autonomy or freedom of actions such crimes do not require proof of
physical harm.

OAPA

Against autonomy crime of violence

Non-fatal offenses fatal offences

Assault/battery s.47, s.18, s.20

Failure to charge the right offense will result in case being thrown out.

2
 Assault/common assault

Psychic assault Physical Assault Battery

Apprehension/threat infliction

Psychic assault: it is a treat of application of unlawful force by defendant to the victim.

Physical assault: it is the application of unlawful force by the defendant.
M.R
Assault: the offense of assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes
another person to apprehend the application of immediate of unlawful violence.
A.R
Actus Reus: causing victim to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful force.
Apprehension of unlawful force
Without apprehension the offense is not to be proven.
Case: R V St.George
St. George had an argument with Mr. Durant and took out a gun. Before he could shoot
another person that person prevented him from shooting. It was held to be an assault since the
person was in fear that he would be shoot by the gun.

When one talks about assault then what one considers is a victim apprehension of a battery
defined in Faulker Vs Tablot by Lord Lane CJ as unlawful physical force or battery
involves any intentional or reckless touching of another person without the consent of that
person and without lawful excuse. It needs not necessarily be hostile or aggressive.
Immediacy
The victim must apprehend immediate violence but what is immediate is dependent upon the
facts.
Case: Tuber Ville V Savage
If a man lay his hand upon his sword and say, “if it were not assize (court) time. I would not
take such language from you.” Was held not to be an assault since threat of harm does not
include present intent to harm and an assault requires a threat of imminent danger.
Case: Smith V Chief Superintendent
It was an assault to stand outside the victim’s window and stair in with intend to frighten her
and causing her to apprehend contact.

3
 Case R V Horseferry
Waltkin LJ mentioned that Immediate does not mean instantaneous. Immediacy means that
it is likely that violence will result with in a relatively short period of time and without any
other intervening occurrence.

Case R V Costanza
The defendant sent numerous letters to the victim, drove past her door on many occasions and
made a number of silent telephone calls. The victim was concerned that the defendant had
flipped, and something could happen at any time. The court of appeal held that the test of
imminent violence was whether there was a fear of violence at sometime not excluding the
immediate future.
Words and Assault
Tuber Ville V Savage words may negate what otherwise be an assault.
Case R V Wilson
The words, “get out the knives” could amount to an assault.
Case R V Ireland & Burstow
It was held in words alone and in some circumstances, silence can constitute assault where
the victim apprehends the possibility of imminent force. However, according to Lord Steyn
this was always a question of fact.
Mens Rea
The Mens Rea of assault is intention or recklessness
Case R V Venna
It must be proved that the defendant either intended to cause or was aware of the reck of
causing the victim to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful violence.

Battery
A person commits a battery if he intentionally or recklessly inflict immediate unlawful
violence on another person.
Collin V Wilcock
An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate
unlawful force on another person; a battery is actual infliction of unlawful force on another
person…. Any touching of another person however slight may amount to battery.
Actus Reas of battery: the actus reas of battery is infliction of immediate unlawful violence
on another person. An application of force is sufficient, and no harm or injury needs to be
caused.

4
 a) Violence: Callis V Gun
It was held wrongly taking a person’s fingerprint could be a battery.
Commonwealth Vs Cohen
Spitting on a person is battery
Pursell V Horn
Throwing water at the victim although not at the clothes is a battery.
DPP V Smith
Cutting hairs will constitute as battery

b) Hostility
Wilson V Pringle
It was held that touching must be hostile to amount to a battery.
ReF
Lord Goff doubted the requirement of hostility because according to him a prank that gets
out of hand, an over friendly slap on the back. Surgical treatment by the surgeon who
mistakenly thinks that patient has consented to it. All these things are unlawful without being
characterized as hostile.
c) Omission and battery
Fagan V MPC
The concept of continuing act was used in this case to allow what seemed to be an omission
to be treated as a positive act. Defendant was told by a police officer to bring his car closer to
the curb. He obeyed the order but in doing so he accidently drove his car on to the constable
foot. When the police officer asked his to remove the car. He turned off the ignition and
refused to do so.
DPP V Santana Bermudez
Defendant injured a women police officer by permitting her to search him knowing that he
had needle in his pocket. Defendant denied having any needle when asked. It was held the
defendant had created a danger by an act and that act was a continuing act and risk of injury
was foreseeable there by omission may be a bases for an assault/battery.
d) Directness of force
The application of force need not to be direct R V Martin. The defendant turned off lights in
the theater and bared the exist causing a crush in which several people were injured. It was
still regarded as a relevant charge since the cause of such crust was defendants act.
DPP V K
Defendant a schoolboy put acid in a hot air dyer which resulted in victim being burned.

5
 Haystead Vs Chief Constable
The defendant punched a person who was holding a child in her arms. The child fell hitting
his head on the floor and defendant was guilting in respect of the child.
Mens Rea
Case: R V Venna
The Mens Rea for battery is intention to inflict unlawful violence on a person or recklessness
as to whether such violence is inflicted.
Section 47 OAPA 1891
Assault occasioning to actual bodily harm(ABH)
1. Conduct base is assault
2. Result----ABH
3. Causation----‘link’
An action/assault which resulted in ABH---- health and comfort of victim
 Harm which does not require stiches.
 No blood flows.
 Minor injury bruises and rapture.
Layer of skin

-------------------------Epidermis
-------------------------mesodermis
-------------------------endodermis
Section 47. OAPA 1861 makes it an offense to commit an assault occasionally actual bodily
harm carrying out a maximum imprisonment of 5 years.
Actus Reas of Section 47
there must be a common assault by the defendant coupled with the result that ABH has been
caused and there must be a causal link between common assault and the result (ABH).
Prosecution must proof that defendant common assault caused ABH.
R V Miller [R V Donovan---Swift J]
Swift justice defined ABH as any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or
comfort of the victim; it does not have to be permanent but must be more than transient or
trifling (for a very brief period of time)
R V Chanfook
Actual bodily harm includes psychiatric injury but does not include emotions such as fear or
pain. ABH does not include states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some

6
identifiable clinical condition. Only expert evidence to this effect should be made to jury
regarding psychiatric injury. ABH interferes with health of victim but it is of temporary sort.
DPP V Smith
Cutting of women ponytail is ABH although hair is technically dead tissue.
R V Ireland
Panic disorder and chronic panic attacks counts as ABH.
R V Burstow
Depressive illness counts as ABH.
Mens Rea for section 47
Intention or recklessness
R V Savage and Parmenter
The Mens Rea of assault and battery is the proof of Mens Rea of offense under section 47
OAPA 1861. The verdict of assault occasioning ABH may be given upon the proof of an
assault together with the proof that ABH is caused by Assault.
R V Roberts
For section 47 the prosecution only has to proof that the defendant intended to cause the
apprehension of unlawful contact to the victim or intended to apply an unlawful force to the
victim.
Section 20

Actus Reus Mens Rea

GBH Wounding Intention

Yes No Or
Continuity of skin Recklessness

Under section 20 an offense is committed where the defendant unlawfully maliciously

wounds or inflicts any GBH either with or with out a weapon shall be guilty of an offense.
Actus Reas of section 20
Section 20 requires the defendant to have “wounded or inflicted” any GBH. The words
wound and inflict in the section imply that there must be a positive act by the defendant and it
must not be committed by omission.
Wounding

7
 Moriaty V Brooks
To cause a wound both dermis and epidermis must be broken.
R V Eisenhower
A wound requires more than a scratch or a graze and require penetration of both layers of
skin.
Mc Loughlin V O’Brian
To constitutes a wound a scratch or break to the outer skin is not sufficient if inner skin
remains intact.
JCC Minor V Eisenhower
An internal rapture of blood vessel in the victims eye will not amount to wounding with in
section 20 since the continuity of skin needs to be broken.
Section 20 OAPA 1861
Wounding
AR
GBH
Case: R V Saunders
GBH means serious harm
DPP V Smith
Defined GBH as really serious Harm or injury
[R V Instan] [R V Evans]
Harm can be caused by an act or an omission in breach of duty.
All clinical negligence would be done through omission.

R V Januja
Serious harm that constitutes no break in continuation of whole skin is GBH.
R V Dica
GBH also included sexually transmitted disease.
R V Bollom
To determine the seriousness of harm the jury must take into account age, physical state of
the victim and the nature of the injury.

Wounding-----Case R V Waltham

8
There is one exception to the rule that internal rupture does not count as wound where the
internal membrane ruptured takes the form of skin for example the lining of the mouth.
Outer bleeding-----wound
Internal-----GBH
R V Burstow
This case deal with psychiatric injury and serious clinical depression to qualify clinicial
depression as GBH it must be serious enough and it must be proved that defendant inflicted it
by applying direct or indirect force.

Section 20 Mens Rea

Intention or recklessness
The mens rea required is donated by the word maliciously inorder to prove that the defendant
acted maliciously it is sufficient to prove that he intended his act to result in some unlawful
bodily harm to some other person, even minor nature, or was subjectively reckless as to the
risk that his act might result in such harm.
R V Mowatt
It was necessary to prove that the defendant intended or foresaw harm befalling victim, but it
was not necessary to intend or foresee the degree of harm already sustained.
R Vs Savage & Parmenter
The defendant needs to intend or be reckless as to causing some harm. It is quite unnecessary
that the accused should either have intended or foreseen that his unlawful act might cause
physical harm of gravity described in section. 20; it is enough that he should have foreseen
that some physical harm even though of minor character might result.
Section 18 OAPA 1861
AR-------same as section 20
----------prevention of arrest (section 18)
MR-----only intention
Section 18 states that it who so ever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means wounds
or cause any GBH to any person with intent to do GBH or intend to prevent or resist lawful
apprehension or detention of any person shall be guilty of the offense.
It involves intention to cause GBH and to resist or prevent his own arrest or somebody else
arrest. (R V Morrison)
Mens Rea for Scetion 18-----intention
[R V Woolin] [R V Belfon]

9
It must have been proven that the defendant intention is to do some GBH to the victim in
other words it can be said if the person hand the intention to commit murder, he may be
guilty under section 18.
A jury which is not conviced that defendant had necessary intention to cause GBH can bring
in an alternative verdict under section 20. [R V Mandair]
R V Banton
The trial judge refused to allow the jury this option of section 20 and he told jury that this
could only mean one thing (section 20) can not be charged as a default to section 18.
Specific defenses
Consent where one person freely consents to what would otherwise be an assault or any
injury than there would be no offense.
A person contents if he agrees by choice or has freedom and capacity to make the choice.
Consent can be expressed or implied.
 The test for concent
1. The consent was freely given and not obtained through fraud.
2. The victim has a legal capacity to consent.
3. Where the infliction of bodily harm is involved the act consented was the one to
which consent is legally recognized as a defense. Act must be inherently lawful for
defense of consent to apply.
Wilson V Pringle
It is suggested that people impliedly consent to ordinary social contact.
R V Barnes
Resort to criminal courts in cases of supporting injury should be exceptional; most sports
have their own codes which must be deployed.
Re J: Prohibited Steps Order
Incase of minors the consent of both parents is necessary for non-clinically necessary
procedure.
R V Wilson
Tattooing ear piercing and other form of body piercing or body alteration may also be
consented if reasonable.
R V Kirk
The conviction of rape of a hungry girl was upheld who submitted to intercourse so as to
be able to get food.
Fraud as to the nature of act
R Vs Williams

10
 The defendant was guilty of offense as he obtained claimant consent to intercourse by
falsely representing to her that it would enhance her breating exercise thus there was a
fraud as to the nature of act.
R V Clarence
The defendant had an intercourse with his wife knowing that he had a sexually
transmitted disease, and he did not inform about it to her. The victim argued that there
had been an assault as she would not have consented to intercourse had she known that he
had the condition.
It was held that there was no deception as to the nature of the act and it was irrelevant that
she was mistaken about a collateral detail of it.
R V Tabassum
The defendant was found guilty of indecent assault since he portraited medical
examination for medical purposes and court held that there was no consent as to the
quality of the act.
R V Dica Helping case Konzani
Consent must be fully informed inorder to be operate.
Consent needs to be freely given and not induced by duress fear or threats.
R V Nichol
Duress may be implied from the relationship as well.
Consent will never be negated by age provided that the victim understands the nature of
the act.
Gillick Vs West HA
A person under 16 consent to advise and treatment without the need for any parental
consent provided that the child has the ability to appreciate the situation.

Burrell V Harmer
A tattooist was guilty of common assault for tattooing the youth of 12 and 13 and consent
was not regarded withstanding.
A consent should respect public policy prime case AG Reference no. 6 of 1980.
The court of appeal held that where there is either information of any degree of bodily
harm which is more than trifling or where such harm was intended but not caused than
consent will only be a defense where the harm caused or intended was in the public
interest. Whether something is in public interest is a question of whether the act serves a
valid social purpose.
R V Brown-----Sodo Masochist Activites

11
 The consent to sodo masochist activities can not function as a defense by reason of public
policy since it doesnot come with in the category of public interest. The same principle
was upheld in R V Emmett.

12