Applied Law - QCF (Edexcel)

Non-fatal offences

Hello, Humberside Police. As you know I am a local solicitor, I have been urged to write to you to inform you of the elements of non-fatal offences, you may come across these types of offences in your day to day work, the sheet below is simply for educational purposes, you may already know some of this and some of it may be new.

Types of offences

There are three different types of offences, summary offences, triable either way offences and indictable offences; a summary offence is an offence on a lower scale, these types of offences can only be tried in a magistrates court, a triable either way offence must be cross examined to determine whether it should go to the magistrates court or the crown court and last must not least an indictable offence are the offences considered more serious and these are tried at the crown court.

Assault

The word assault can include battery or assault, these are regarded summary offences so therefore will get tried in a magistrates court. If you would like to look further into the sentences provided for common assault the S.39 Criminal Justice Act (CJA 1988) will explain this further.

When tried in court assault has a specific actus reus and mens rea, the actus reus of common assault will be admissible if the defendant acts or says something that causes fear to the defendant this does NOT include any form of physical contact, the defendant must make the victim consider that they may potentially be in danger at the hands of the defendant.

In the case of R v Lamb (1967) it involves two young boys, one being the defendant and the other being the victim, both the victim and the defendant had guns but weren't aware of the possibility of one of them shooting the other, but the defendants gun was properly loaded and ready to fire so he shot the gun, it was found that the defendant was not guilty of assault as it was unintentional and he didn't realise the gun would fire.

The mens rea of assault applies when it is found that the defendant directly intended to cause fear towards the victim after acting unlawfully and mens rea, this is the highest level of mens rea. Indirect intention can also apply to mens rea, this applies if the defendant is kind of certain that they are taking a risk and mens rea also applies when the defendant is reckless with their actions and they realise they are taking a risk, mens rea also applies.

In the case of *!R v Savage (1991), the defendant and the victim were at a bar, the defendant intended to throw a pint of alcohol onto the victim but instead the glass flew out of the defendants hand, even though the defendant had no intention of hurting the victim it was foreseeable that the glass could fly out of her hand so therefore recklessness applies, it was held that because of this the defendant is guilty.

Battery

Battery includes actual touching unlike assault, this can be direct or indirect, battery does not include everyday touching that is experienced with the correct context.

Battery has an actus reus and mens rea, the actus reus will be admissible if minor injury or a form of contact happened within the context of it being unlawful, the defendant actually needs to touch the victim for any of this to apply physical contact to be applicable to actus reus or battery in itself.

In the case Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire (2000), in this case the defendant punched the woman in the face who at the time was holding a child, the victim, because of the punch to the woman's face the child fell out of the woman's arms, because this was foreseeable, actus reus applies and even though it was indirect it was held that the defendant was guilty.

Mens rea applies when the defendant intends to apply unlawful force or it is foreseeable that the defendant might apply it, recklessness is subjective and hard to label unless put into context but when being reckless it must be proven that the defendant thought at any point that their act could lead to anything unlawful.