Welcome to Non-Fatal Offences!
In this chapter, we are going to dive into the laws that deal with how the English legal system protects people from physical or psychological harm that doesn’t result in death. While "Fatal Offences" deal with murder and manslaughter, Non-Fatal Offences cover everything from a simple threat to a very serious injury. This is a vital part of your Criminal Law module because these are the crimes most commonly seen in the courts.
Don’t worry if some of the names of these laws sound a bit old-fashioned (like the "1861 Act")! We will break them down step-by-step so you can spot the differences between them easily. Let's get started!
1. Prerequisite Concept: The Building Blocks of a Crime
Before we look at specific offences, remember that for almost every crime, the prosecution must prove two things:
1. Actus Reus (AR): The "guilty act" or the physical part of the crime.
2. Mens Rea (MR): The "guilty mind" or the mental part (what the person was thinking).
2. Common Assault (s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988)
Even though we often use the word "assault" to mean someone got hit, in Law, Common Assault is actually two separate things: Technical Assault and Battery.
A. Technical Assault
Definition: Any act that makes a victim expect (apprehend) immediate, unlawful personal violence.
Actus Reus (The Act): An act that causes the victim to fear they are about to be hit. This can be a gesture (shaking a fist), or even just words or silence (as seen in the case of R v Ireland, where silent phone calls were enough).
Mens Rea (The Mind): Intention or subjective recklessness to cause the victim to fear immediate violence.
B. Battery
Definition: The actual application of unlawful force to another person.
Actus Reus (The Act): Touching the victim without their consent. It doesn't have to hurt! Even touching someone’s clothes can be battery (R v Thomas).
Mens Rea (The Mind): Intention or subjective recklessness that force will be applied.
Memory Aid: The "Stranger on the Bus" Analogy
If someone raises their hand as if to slap you, that is an Assault (you expect force).
If they actually slap you, that is a Battery (force is applied).
If they do both, it’s still usually charged as "Assault and Battery."
Quick Review: Common Assault is for the least serious harms. Usually, there is no injury at all, or perhaps just very minor reddening of the skin.
3. Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (s47 OAPA 1861)
This is where things get more serious. The name "s47" comes from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Actus Reus: You must have an Assault or Battery that causes Actual Bodily Harm (ABH).
What is ABH? It is harm that is "more than trivial." Examples include: broken teeth, extensive bruising, or even cutting off a victim’s hair (DPP v Smith). It can also include psychiatric injury, but not just "feeling upset."
Mens Rea: This is the part that surprises many students! You only need the Mens Rea for the original Assault or Battery. You do not need to intend the injury itself. As long as you intended to touch them or make them fear force, you are liable for the injury that follows.
Common Mistake to Avoid: Don't think the defendant must intend to cause a bruise. If they intended to push the person (Battery) and that person fell and broke a tooth, they have the MR for s47.
4. Wounding and Grievous Bodily Harm (s20 OAPA 1861)
We use s20 for serious injuries. This is often called "Unlawful Wounding."
Actus Reus: The defendant must wound or inflict Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH).
• Wounding: A break in the continuity of the skin. Both layers of the skin (dermis and epidermis) must be broken. Usually, this means bleeding (JJC v Eisenhower).
• GBH: This means "really serious harm" (DPP v Smith). Examples include broken limbs, permanent disability, or serious psychiatric injury.
Mens Rea: The defendant must intend or be reckless that "some harm" might occur. They don't have to intend *serious* harm, just *some* harm.
Did you know? When deciding if an injury is GBH, the court looks at the victim. A bruise might be ABH on a healthy adult, but the same injury on a very young baby or an elderly person could be classed as GBH (R v Bollom).
5. GBH with Intent (s18 OAPA 1861)
This is the "big one." It is the most serious non-fatal offence and can carry a life sentence. The injury might look the same as s20, but the intent is different.
Actus Reus: Same as s20 (Wounding or GBH).
Mens Rea: This is a specific intent crime. The defendant must:
1. Specifically intend to cause GBH (really serious harm), OR
2. Specifically intend to resist or prevent arrest.
Step-by-Step Explanation: s20 vs s18
• If Dave throws a glass at John, thinking "I'll just sting him a bit," and it causes a deep cut = s20 (he was reckless that some harm would happen).
• If Dave smashes a glass and stabs John, thinking "I'm going to ruin his face forever" = s18 (he specifically intended really serious harm).
6. Summary Table of Non-Fatal Offences
Offence: Common Assault (s39)
Harm: No injury or very minor.
Mental State: Intend/Reckless as to fear or touching.
Offence: ABH (s47)
Harm: "More than trivial" (bruises, broken tooth).
Mental State: Same MR as Common Assault.
Offence: GBH / Wounding (s20)
Harm: Serious harm or broken skin.
Mental State: Intend or reckless as to "some harm."
Offence: GBH with Intent (s18)
Harm: Serious harm or broken skin.
Mental State: Specific intent to cause GBH or resist arrest.
7. Evaluating the Law (Critical Analysis)
In your exam, you may be asked to evaluate if these laws are "fit for purpose." Here are some points to consider:
• The 1861 Act is Outdated: This law was written over 160 years ago! It uses words like "maliciously" and "inflict" which have confused judges for decades. It was written before we understood psychiatric harm or how diseases (like HIV) could be spread, which are now covered under these laws.
• Inconsistency in Sentencing: Some people argue the jump between s47 and s20 isn't clear enough, yet the sentences are very different.
• The "Correspondence Principle": In s47, the defendant doesn't need to intend the harm caused. Some legal experts think this is unfair because the "guilty mind" doesn't match the "guilty act."
Key Takeaway for Evaluation: The Law Commission has suggested several times that we need a new "Offences Against the Person Act" to make the language modern and the hierarchy of offences clearer. For now, we are stuck with the Victorian version!
Final Encouragement: You’ve just covered one of the biggest topics in Criminal Law! The trick is always to look at the level of injury first to narrow down the offence, and then check the defendant’s intention to see if it’s a s20 or a s18. You're doing great!