Assault, Battery, And Grievous Bodily Harm Cases
1. Assault
Definition:
Assault is an act that causes another person to fear imminent unlawful force. Importantly, no physical contact is necessary; it’s the threat of force that constitutes assault.
Key Case Law:
R v Ireland (1997)
Facts: The defendant made a series of silent phone calls to three women over several months, causing them severe psychiatric injury.
Issue: Whether causing fear of violence via silent phone calls constitutes assault.
Held: The House of Lords held that assault can include causing psychological fear of immediate violence. Silence can amount to assault if it instills fear of imminent harm.
Principle: Assault can be committed without physical contact; psychological fear is sufficient.
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
Facts: The defendant placed his hand on his sword and said, “If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you.”
Held: No assault occurred because the words indicated that he would not act violently.
Principle: Words can negate assault if they show no immediate threat.
2. Battery
Definition:
Battery is the unlawful application of force to another person. Unlike assault, battery requires physical contact, however minor.
Key Case Law:
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
Facts: A policewoman grabbed a woman’s arm to prevent her from leaving. The woman scratched the officer.
Held: The court held that any unlawful touching, however slight, constitutes battery.
Principle: Even minimal or indirect physical contact can amount to battery.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)
Facts: Fagan accidentally drove onto a police officer’s foot and then refused to remove the car.
Held: There was a battery because the initial act was accidental but the continuing act of refusing to remove the foot constituted intentional application of force.
Principle: Battery can arise from a continuing act.
3. Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH)
Definition:
GBH is the most serious form of harm under criminal law and involves serious physical injury. Under Section 20 and Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, GBH can be with or without intent.
Key Case Law:
R v Brown (1993)
Facts: The defendants engaged in consensual sadomasochistic activities, causing injuries.
Held: Consent is not a defense to actual bodily harm or GBH in situations likely to cause serious injury.
Principle: GBH can occur even in private, consensual acts if serious injury is inflicted.
R v Dica (2004)
Facts: The defendant, knowing he was HIV positive, had unprotected sexual intercourse with two women without informing them.
Held: Infecting someone with HIV constitutes GBH because it is serious harm.
Principle: GBH can include long-term or life-threatening diseases, not just physical injury.
R v Eisenhower (1983)
Facts: The defendant shot the victim with an air gun, breaking the skin but not causing serious injury.
Held: Wounding requires breaking the skin; mere bruising does not constitute GBH.
Principle: GBH requires a serious level of physical harm, and wounding implies breaking the skin.
R v Belfon (1976)
Facts: The defendant slashed the victim with a razor with intent to cause serious harm.
Held: Section 18 requires specific intent to cause serious bodily harm.
Principle: GBH with intent is a more serious offense than reckless infliction of GBH.
Summary Table
| Offense | Requirement | Key Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assault | Fear of immediate force | R v Ireland, Tuberville v Savage | Fear of imminent violence; words or silence can suffice |
| Battery | Physical contact | Collins v Wilcock, Fagan v MPC | Unlawful touching; continuing acts can constitute battery |
| GBH | Serious injury | R v Brown, R v Dica, Eisenhower | Includes serious physical harm or life-threatening diseases; intent matters |
RELATED Blog
0 comments