hello and welcome back to another video on a level or revision so this one's going to be a non-fatal offences against the person revision video so we can have a look through the different offenses that you need to know for the specification in the exam so one of the first offence is that you do need to know is assault and this is to find in common law the case of Cornwall actually gives us the definition and it is charged under section 39 of the criminal justice is a massive mistake people there which people mention that it's or say it's been defined under the Criminal Justice Act it wasn't it was actually defined in common law you won't find a definition if you go to section 39 of Criminal Justice X we've gotta be really careful there it's a summary offense which try which means it's tried in the master eight score and the maximum sentence is six months the act is raised in the mens rea you can see in the middle bit there of the slides so intentionally or recklessly it's the men's rape are causing the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate and north of force that it's a slightly adapted actress res particularly their the actual traditional definition uses the word violence and things like that so we've actually just taken that and sort of simplified it slightly to actually what it is to make it more sense in terms of the law three cases that tell us a bit more information about what can class as sort of an assault and just essentially the easiest way to remember it is it is just a threat you actually have to hit anybody or doing or apply any force it's simply a threat of doing so so in Mead we saw that words and singing can certainly be seen as sufficient to be a threat we saw that sighs telephone calls in Ireland was sufficient again to be the result threat and Constanza threatening letters as well so in each of those cases the questions whether did those actions cause the victim to think or apprehend the infliction of immediate and all the force that they think they were gonna have force applied to them there and then some issues there potential with Ireland Constanza but we'll come back to those later on but but generally you can see and the victim would have felt frightened at that at that moment I felt like so I'm not going to apply an awful force towards them furthermore with a soul as a couple more cases so log doing it's all about what the victim thinks when that care in that case I'm gonna draw with a gun it'll be defendant in that case said well I couldn't have shot him because there wasn't any ammo in the gun but of course the victim didn't know that so the victim did apprehend to the infliction of a media unlawful force in Arabi key the victim knew it wasn't possible in this one they were on the train and that was the train was leaving and the person wasn't platform there was no way that that person would be able to apply a mobile force against them so and the victim knew that so the victim hadn't been assaulted you can interpret Bill the savage or Suraj the words negated the assault you know what he said was essentially I would assault you but I'm not going to so in that case the victim was knows it's not going to happen so they've not been assaulted they don't apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force and it's myth B Chief Constable of working police station looked at this it was a sort peeping tom case he able to get a good defense counsel because they said well he was outside the window peering in and they said well he couldn't immediately apply an awful force because you'd have to get into their house first so the court sort of adapted the wording and said well imminent is sufficient you know it doesn't have to be immediate and imminent it's probably slightly along the line they're still soon but not quite as soon as immediate but that would be sufficient so that case was still assault in terms of the mens rea as we said earlier it's intentionally or recklessly causing the victims that premium fix them immediately perforce what mistake a lot of people do in this when they're writing this they just say the mens rea was intentional recklessly and the question mark there before intention of actually doing what so it's important that you say intentionally or directly causing the liquid diaper in the don't need another force that's what you have to intend or be reckless about in terms of what intention and recklessness mean we know from the case of Mohan the intention is the idea it's a decision to bring about a prohibited consequence so you just saw anything to do with an offense that's sort of the intention there we know recklessness from the case of coming in at the gas meter case knowing it's knowing that there's a risk and decides to take it so some difference is there and you can sort of work that out in the scenario if a sort of comes up generally most results are done intentionally as part of like a fire or for some reason like there you can see from their actions quite difficult to a reckless or so one of the common is what examples is maybe some things I want on a clown Massimino someone's scared of clowns so their intention is to frighten them do they know there's a risk that that person could apprehend the infliction meeting over force and think they're going to be assault attacked maybe it's not their intention but possibly they're reckless there so a bit of a strange example but something that maybe could sort of be the reckless part terms of battery it's very similar so the first bits are identical to assault really so it's defined in common law same case coins will clock charged under Section 39 pretty much a society again careful states to find a common law not section 39 calissa's act same so it's summary and a maximum six months sentence as well this was generally easier it's a shorter act as Raya so general it's easy to remember so intentionally or recklessly the same mens rea as so but this one applying unlawful force so most commonly people talk about assaults as this actually being hit by somebody but the actual big hit person initial force being applied is actually a battery we know it from coins via wall clock which is the same case as one above it's the slightest touch you know in that case he policeman grabbed acrostics arm didn't have to be violent slightest touches enough so it certainly doesn't have to be a punch or a slap although that but more commonly be obviously seen as a battery it could simply be pertinent I think one someone else's shoulder or hands on his shoulder on the back that would be technically enough to be a battery whether it would be charged you know by the Crown Prosecution Service and all by the police it's a different question but technically under the law it could be Thomas we saw that touching closes sufficient he sort of rubbed the hem of a lady's dress and that one and that was sufficient to be a battery doesn't have to be touching someone skiing or punishing them or anything like that as we said but bear in mind the ordinary giass things of everyday life from the case of Wilson V Pringle would not be a battery so bumping someone on the train or on the tube or on the bus in the corridor at college or school that's not gonna be they're not going to be seen as battery it's just ordinary jostling 'he's santa familias bit more of a rarer case it was done through an emission to the soft and searched piece as I said if you've got anything on you he said no she put hand in his pocket and I was gonna need when it's obviously applied an awful force but like I had going into a hand he didn't directly like stab with needles like that but he did apply a little force by failing to stay but it was in there so bit of a rarer case quite difficult to come up I would say but it's worth knowing in case it in case it does Martin DPP BK both have the same sort of legal point ratio there so they both say the force can be applied in directly a martini shower he bobbed the theater doors in Chapter five may that wasn't a farm people injured DP pvk but the acid in the hand dryer and obviously that's been sprayed out at somebody so in both of those cases it's not the case of sana punching or slapping someone it's a case of the force being applied through something else is that and they would say that's indirectly so this will include things like throwing a rock at someone or slamming a door and someone or you know those sort of things training a dog to jump on someone in theory could be the same those sort of things would still be applying force even though you haven't physically done it with your hand or your leg whatever Fagin again bit of a strange case the battery was says batteries of Continuing act in this case the man accidentally drove onto a police's foot but then refused to remove it even though he knew it was on there now strictly speaking he did inform the mens rea till after we've done the actors Reyes so if you know the principle of coincide and some extra rest man and then coincide with actors race and men's rheya if you don't understand that it's worth looking at the video in intoxication which covers that towards the end that's on this channel they whether it wouldn't work essentially he wouldn't be guilty so they essentially said the actors Reyes is a continuing act so as long as the menswear happens some point within that period of time which it did because he formed it afterwards when he decided not to remove the tougher for the tie from the foot it was fine and he was convicted of it so really a public policy case there he was obviously in the wrong so he didn't know they can get away with it based on a technicality and the mens rea is exactly the same as i sold so it's worth knowing those definitions from Mohan and as well in terms of what intentionally and recklessly mean and a reckless just going back as well a reckless battery might look something like swinging a bar around you don't intend to hit someone with it but you know there's a risk you could hit someone with it and decided to take that risk anyway so that would be a reckless battery if you hit someone with it you know in theory first is intentionally doing it watch out in four scenarios four batteries that occur without assaults so if you sneak up on them or hit them in the dark you know those in those instances there would be no assault and that's worth mentioning that and saying well they the person and the victim wouldn't have apprehended the infliction of medium of a force there would be no so and also bear in mind that someone battery came to be combined into the offense of Communists so so that's worth mentioning as well in terms of ABH gets bit more complicated now abh is actually defined in section 47 of the offenses against the person's act which is a statute will sort of look at towards the end in terms of the essay very important essay and lots of criticism we can make of that to tribally the way offense which means it can be tried in the magistrates or the Crown Court and there's obviously variations on that there'll be another video on how that works soon on the channel it's a maximum of five year sentence just up significantly from up to the assault battery and the at Astraeus is an assault or battery which occasions a BH no occasions the sim essentially means is means causes so asset assault battery which results will pauses may be age and the mens rea is intentionally or recklessly committing an assault or battery so actually we'll look at a minute how actually there isn't actually any extra mens rea afford the abh par so essentially you have to prove that an assault battery happened and that resulted in some abh and we'll look at how how that works in a second so quite often it's seen as like an upgraded assault or battery or an aggravated assault battery because normally with an assault and battery there's no actual harm caused as soon as there's sort of minor harm hauls which is the General's of definition of ABH you're looking at potentially an abh offence instead so obviously it uses the term abh there and we're talking minute when we look at the criticisms about it being that perhaps a circular definition so don't worry about that yep I'll come to that a case obviously has had to tell us actually because the statute doesn't tell us what ADH actually means so a case called Miller told us that it meant any harm calculated to interfere with a healthful comfort of the victim so you know yes since you're looking at bruises scratches minor burns - psychological harm which I'll come to in a minute sort of minor harm really broken nose is the absolute classic one or twisting an ankle or wrist it's thought where it's not super serious harm but it obviously is it does interfere with your health and comfort Ireland specifically told us and that's going back to the same case area with the silent era phone calls that psychiatric illness can count as ABH they're sort of minor psychological harm some minor anxiety and monitor pressure and could certainly be seen as abh and that's usually caused through an assault through something that's stalking or something like that DPP V Smith it's cutting off a ponytail that was sufficient to be a BH you know in terms of looking at the technicalities of that does it interfere helpful comfort not perhaps for physical health but certainly in terms of your psychological health and attachment you would have to your hair and things obviously they took that very seriously and TB DPP they said temporary loss of consciousness of being knocked out essentially is sufficient to be a BH in terms of the mens rea uh you do not need to prove that D foresaw intended or was reckless as to whether what they did caused a BH so we look at the case of Roberts DS guilty as he committed a battery and on the sole in that case probably so he's liable for a BH it didn't matter that he didn't intend McCook intending the harm caused this is where she chucked herself out of the vehicle and was he bruised and injured herself even though he didn't even know it could happen potentially it happened tough luck he didn't a solar battery that resulted in a BH you do not have to prove any sort of mens rea link to the a BH as long as they intended to were recklessly did the assault battery if that's resulted in a be age that is the answer so when you're all applying this it's really important that you cover firstly has there been an assault battery and you want to make sure you cover the full that stress and mens rea before that and then secondly has that resulted in some minor harm if the answer is yes they're guilty of a BH regardless of whether they intended it or foresaw the harm at that level of harm being caused GBH section 20 so offenses against person act to trial either way offense again and same sentence there again which will come to as potentially a problem now the actress reyes in this one is wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm and the mens rea is intent to do some harm or reckless as to any harm caused now this is rick it's bit interesting and complicated the defendant can be charged with either wounding or inflicting GBH not both so it can either be charged for that first bit wounding the first bit max reyes or inflicting the GBH part now we saw in eisenhower an word or either that a wound is a break in the continuity of the skin which means basically a cut that bleeds so as soon as you've got a cut that please that's a break in the continuity of the skin that is a wound so the problem was in eisenhower am word in eisenhower he was shot in the eye with a BB gun and it caused severe bruising around his eye but no breaking the conscience cut in continuity of the skin there was no cut so they charged him with wounding but in that essence they he had been wounded him so essentially he wasn't guilty in word he the defendant broke the victim's collarbone again there was no break the continuity of the skin it was about internal obviously and they charged him with wounding and again that was a mistake because that wasn't a wound so you have to be really careful there as to whether it's a wound or not is it if it's a cut it is a wound in terms of saunders that case told us that GBH is serious harm so in terms of the inflicting GBH they're doing the GBH part that's doing serious harm there's no needing this one to prove that there's been an assault or battery first like with a bh it's simply you go straight in have they wounded or have they done serious harm and that's literally a judgment call in terms of the you know the a clear outcome of what's happened the results what's happened so you know stab wound would essentially be both it would be a break and continue to the skin and it would be cast as serious harm clearly so they could be charged with either their the example of a broken collarbone now you know it's not a wound so that they would want to charge with infliction GBH because a broken collarbone it's very clearly serious harm we have had a few cases that told us bit more information so we know that serious psychrometric are more psychological harm we'll be classed as serious harm so that will count as GBH we saw it from the case of birthday which is a serious stalking case we also known that the transfer or reckless transfer of biological diseases such as HIV can also be classed as GBH or serious harm and we saw that case from the case of dica where his intention was to have sexual intercourse with the women he knew there was a risk he could pass on HIV because he knew he was hiv-positive and he decided to take that risk so it was a it was a reckless transfer of HIV he didn't intend to give the lady's HIV but he was reckless in doing so so he was charged for section 20 GBH finally again the harm can be indirect it does not have to be directly inflicted so in Luis he was obviously shouting and trying to break down the door of here of this woman she decided to jump out the window to escape him and broke both her legs as a result and he was found liable for causing those obviously serious injuries and broken legs will be seen as serious injuries other things that might be classed a serious injury you might be thinking serious burns severe loss of blood people in a coma any broken bones generally although not hundred-percent but broken bones generally would be seen specifically if it's like a broken leg or anything broken neck absolutely you know those sort of things fracture broken skull anything that would be classed as suitably serious gunshot wound stab wounds those sort of things and then as we said the psychological harm and things like that terms of the mens rea the mens rea is the main thing here that distinguishes section 20 from section 18 the actor's Reyes actually is essentially the same for 18 or 20 so what you actually do the stab wound it could either be 20 or 18 the difference is the mens rea oh so for section 20 its intent to do some harm or intent to all reckless as to whether any harm is caused so you know if I step whereas section 18 is intend to do serious harm so if I stab you most people would argue that's intent to do serious harm so that would be sufficient for section 18 essentially because you've got GBH you've got wound which is the the actors rails part for both and it's resulted in a new end sorry I mean you intend to do serious harm so I always use the example of someone pushing someone over and they break their arm broken arm potentially counted as serious harm so inflicting the GBH part you probably didn't intend serious harm from doing that but you intended some harm or you're reckless as to where for any harms caused compared that's pushing someone down a steep flight of stairs and they break their arm well you've again you've caused you've inflicted you very serious harms the broken arm again and you probably intended serious harm in that instance so that person will be charged a section it's 18 instead section 18 of offences against the person that covers the higher offense of GBH it is indictable she's tried in the Crown Court and the maximum sentence is discretionary life which means the judge has a choice whether to give life or not or anything below and you'll see the axe race is almost identical wounding or causing GBH here but the course of absolutely said that causing means exactly the same is inflecting in this instance now we'll debate at later on in area 3 but in this instance it does so actually as I said earlier the actors race for 20 an 18 is identical you have to like a wound or do serious harm and as you can see there the menswear is intent to do serious harm same situation they can be charged with either wounding or GBH you have to think about the differences there and they have the same definition so it wound again is a break in the continuity of skin and GBH means serious harm as from Saunders as well couple of cases on here Roe is obviously quite a new case 2017 a couple years ago now it was the first case to convict in this country for intentionally infecting the victim or victims with HIV so all other cases before hand had been the reckless transfer of HIV in this case they're all to prove that he intended to do serious harm because he wanted to infect other people with HIV so it's worth looking at the difference during that and dica morrison basically established the rule that if someone commits to section 20 GBH but that's combined with resisting arrest or attempting to prevent arrest or resist arrest they'll operate at section 18 and that is on the basis of sort of protecting police officers in the line of duty and things like that so quite an each case and but worth looking at and sort of worth being aware of in case that comes up in exam in terms of essay points and sort of jumping off points for a a three first thing is number one the offences against the person act over which is commonly short on to is a was supposed to be a consolidating act at the time in 1861 so given that assault of battery sort of two main offenses that are mentioned as part of a B H as well which is in Hopa why weren't they included because we know they're defined in common law they're not found in Opa so it's a bit strange as to why they're not in there and you can talk about this or problems with that and issues and why perhaps you know reforming act might include them from the Law Commission you know as a suggestion number two opa uses old language so they talked about the words that grieve us wounding felony we don't particularly use those words necessarily anymore selecting cause confusion for jurors magistrates perhaps and sort of lay people in terms of understanding and understanding the law as to what those terms really mean you know grievous bodily harm just means serious harm so why not call it that why call it GBH still it also refers to lots of old things they refer to a particular chemical word laudanum which i might be pronouncing that horrific lee but that's a chemical we don't no longer we no longer use really so it sort of references the use of that in a crime it's just not really applicable anymore also offenses Against the Person Act contains a lot of old offenses again no longer use so competing someone trying to escape a shipwreck assaulting a clergyman's that's like a priest you know we don't use these offenses anymore so they need to be repealed really a repeal remember means sort of removed from the statute book overall that's one of the main poison before Oprah is significantly outdated it was written in 1861 Society was significantly different then you know we were long before women's rights working rights working conditions were completely different society was completely different technology things like that so particular phone calls they obviously made no reference to telephone calls were use of telephones and crimes in 1861 because I'm pretty sure that was before the telephone was even existed even existed or if it did it was certainly in its infancy so you know the case of Ireland the judges had to come along and say well what we're going to do in this instance and they have to decide what the law was similar to HIV you know HIV certainly as far as we're aware didn't exist in the human halation in 1861 or not we're aware of so again you know it didn't mention that and their knowledge of sort of sexual transmitted diseases was very low in a way at that time which I think it's probably fair to say in terms of the modern treatment we have of those and things like that and psychological harm again you know they didn't have an awareness psychological harm absolutely but their treatment again was very old you know old-fashioned really and harmful with many instances so again the judges had to step in and really cover that too whether that is something that we want to criminalize today is there causing that sort of level of harm as they did in either number stone we also know at number five is a problem of circular definitions so a B H and G pH in both those definitions they use the terms aviation GBH in the definition of what aviation DBH is we call that a circular definition it's like saying well what's an apple and I'd say Oh boasts of fruit like an apple waste yeah you doesn't tell you what an apple actually really is and because of that judges have had to step in and to define what those terms mean and there's issues there with Paula parliamentary supremacy separation of powers judge made law and things like that but they've had to provide a clearer definition and the offense is in Opa are typical of Victorian legislation they're very narrow cover very specific things we know most of the new new law that's been passed in the last sort of 50 years generally encompasses a broader offenses though theft for instance and so having lots of narrow different theft offense is the theft Act went for one broad offense which they've covered and covers you know a multitude of things number six what I call the paper cut problem and what I think might be referred to as they've got problem boilers you know the issue is technically if you paper cut someone and that calls the Black Arts a brave Buccaneer of the skin that under the law is GBH it's a wound as we know from Eisenhower and wood but of course in reality no one's going to be charged with GBH in that instance you know you'd be lucky to get a battery you know in in really in terms of the CPS taking that seriously and there is a huge disjunction or disparity between what the law actually says across most of these offenses and what actually is charged by the cps and the police crab prosecution servicing the police so one of the big questions here is well if they're not using the law why don't we just change it to what actually they're doing currently there are some issues of sentencing number seven so we know a B H and G basics and twenty Nerys the same sentence which doesn't make any sense when on the hierarchy we know that GPA age section 20 is treated as more seriously you're doing more serious harm and will say in a minute the Law Commission have suggested changing that to seven years rather than five you know the GBH part to reflect that the fact that a BH two rate requires no extra mens rheya so compared to a sort of battery those who saw from Roberts simply if you do an assault battery and that results in some abh some minor harm tough luck and there is some debate there is to wear for that's fair although you know stuff like argument does fit fairly well there in terms of who shouldn't have been assaulting or doing a battery in the first place number nine there is a huge miss de minute misnomer really in terms of the public perception of assault and battery a lot of people would suggest that you know when there's been a battery there's been an assault or in fact probably a commoner soul and mr. Samara T in terms of as I said early about the law and what the CPS charges is an issue and finally number ten the fact that GBH section 20 and 18 the course have told us that there's no difference in the actors Reyes but actually we know section 20 uses the word inflict and section 18 uses the word cause so if Parliament used different words in 1861 surely they meant different things and there's some issues there as to or whether you know they do mean different things or not you can look more into that in terms of whether inflicts would require an assault or battery and where the cause would and things like that so there's some nice reading you can do around that and expand upon that in terms of reform proposals the Law Commission in 2013 you know they said basically that it's widely recognized as being updated they said it's archaic language means old language old-fashioned Victorian approach of listing separate offenses for individual factual scenarios many of which are no longer necessary so sort of echoing what we said there in 2015 they actually gave some specific well they did in 2013 as well but in 2015 they gave it some more specific suggestions of what's changed they suggest renaming a so on battery battery to physical assault assault to threatened assault which would probably more sense and in terms of the 47 20 and 18 sections they suggested renaming them in order there so you can see so the section 18 would be the first one they're intentionally causing serious injury with the maximum sentence of discretionary life in the same way and that wording they're intentionally causing serious injury would fit much closer to what actually it is and get rid of that old language you could see there the second one recklessly causing serious injury would have a maximum sentence of seven years and if you look down to the final one which would replace a pH essentially intentionally or recklessly causing injury and obviously you would have to have definitions of what the serious injury and that was just injury but that language is much more common in terms of what Bieber speak today rather than the old-fashioned terms finally just a couple of quotes from a couple of books here you can see the you can see the references down the bottom if you wanted to find these Wilson William Wilson said opener has enjoyed little in the way of critical acclaim and the case for reform is widely acknowledged as it resistible and finally from readin Fitzpatrick they said the 1861 act was a consolidating statute into which a whole host of existing offenses were placed without any rationalization so two academic view points really they're on the sort of need for reform there in terms of how OPA really is updated and another still in need of reform so finally in terms of scenarios you obviously want to make sure you identify Hammond issues there are there should be two or three maybe more obviously identify which offenses have occurred there and that's the trick they're sort of working out whether expend a soul a battery and abh or one of the GBH is or a multitude of them obviously once you've established which one do you think it is you've been right out there one of those defenses including any relevant cases and then obviously right out the a/o two paragraphs methodically one for each issue I would do looking through the structure of sort of like well here's the actus rare as using that terminology and here's the evidence as to why the x-rays is or isn't president followed by the mens rea using that terminology of the mens rea in the question followed by the evidence of whether you think the menswear is present or not and then including making sure you answer the question so I hope you found that useful that covers non-fatal offenses it's one of the bigger topics for criminal law unit again please subscribe if you've enjoying these videos and like you liked the video and use them as many times as you like to help you revise these topics thank you very much