lOMoARcPSD|8281576
Non-fatal offences Q&A
LLB (University of London)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Zohora Nur (nurzohora@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8281576
2015 ZA Q2 None-fatal offences
I have been asked to discuss Lazim criminal liability toward Mary, Zoe, Eve
and Nor. Lazim may have committed an offence under the Offence Against
the Person Act 1864 and therefore we shall examine the relevant facts to
ascertain whether these fact fit with the relevant offences under this Act
so as to establish his guilt.
In relation to Mary ‘s case. Lazim, a malicious joker, blows up a paper bag
and explodes it behind Mary ‘s back . The shock cause Mary to jump
sideways and bang her head on a cupboard door , causing bruising .Lazim
may have committed an offence under s 47 of the Offence Against the
Person Act 1861 .Under s. 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861 states that it is an offence if a person’s assault occasioned to actual
bodily harm .This section provides no definition of assault or actual bodily
harm .Nor is there any references to the level of Mens rea required .Thus
we must look at common law cases.
To establish this offence the prosecution must ascertain whether there is either
a assault or battery .In this case it could be battery , if so then the
prosecution must establish that there was application of force but does not
have to prove there was direct physical contact between the accused and
victim as held in Haystead’s case
, i.e. the actus rea, and this was caused intentionally or recklessly by Lazim, i.e.
the mens rea .In this case there was application of force as Mary had
jumped sideways and bang her head on a cupboard which was caused by
Lazim when he exploded the paper bag .This was intentional as the facts tell
us he is a malicious joker, this Lazim practical joke of blowing up the paper
bag intended to harm her. Hence, there was battery .
Downloaded by Zohora Nur (nurzohora@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|8281576
Downloaded by Zohora Nur (nurzohora@gmail.com)
Next, the prosecution must establish actual bodily harm . This mean any
injury which is not trivial such as bruising according to the CPS. Thus,
Mary’s bruising could constitutes as an actual bodily harm. Furthermore, having
established actual bodily harm, the prosecution needs to establish causation.
This is ascertained by the reasonable foreseeable test that is could Lazim
reasonably have foreseen as to the consequence of his action. This has been
clearly established as Lazim act had resulted in Mary sustaining the bruise
.The mens rea for s.47 has been satisfied upon proof of the mens rea of
battery. Hence, Lazim has committed an Offence against the Person Act
1861 s.47 as it has met with all the relevant elements of the offence.
In regards to Zoe case, Lazim laces Zoe‘s face cream with roughly ground
glass. Lazim could have committed an offence under s.47 ,s.20, and 18 of the
Offence Against the Persons Act 1861 .In regards to s.47 offence ,generally
proof of the actus rea element of battery is not satisfied upon an act of
omission .However, in DPP v Bermudez the court made an exception, where
the omission resulted in a dangerous situations .Thus ,under this exception
Lazim’s act could satisfy proof of actus rea element of battery as lacing Zoe’s
face cream with roughly ground glass creates a dangerous situation for Zoe.
The mens rea element has also been satisfied because Lazim intended his
act to harm Zoe as he is a malicious joker.
Hence, battery has been proven.
Next, according to the facts after treatment Zoe has a slight scare on her
cheeks this could constitutes actual bodily harm and caused by Lazim act which
he could have reasonably foresee. Furthermore, the mens rea of s. 47 has
also been satisfied upon the proof of mens rea battery. Hence, Lazim has
committed assault occasioning to actual bodily harm under s. 47 of the Act.
In relation to S.20, the Offence is maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm.
This offence is established upon proof of the actus reus element, that is inflict
grievous bodily harm and the mens rea element that is malice. The
prosecution must establish of infliction first. Generally, in Wilson’s case the
court held infliction does not mean cause and therefore requires proof of
direct application of force such as sort of blow or hit to the body .Under this
principle the prosecution will not be able to establish infliction because there
was no blow to Zoe‘s body resulting from Lazim’s act when she suffered her
injuries. However, in Burstow
case the court held the prosecution only has to prove that the accused had
a intention to act .So on this basis infliction could be established as although
Eve‘s injuries were not caused by any blow , his placing rough glass in the face
cream is intentional and is sufficient to establish infliction.
Next, we must establish that grievous bodily harm .This means really serious
injury as held in DPP V Smith. However, whether an injury amounts to
grievous bodily harm depends on the jury’s decision .The decision will vary
according to the age and physical health of the victim.If the jury decided that
the injury amounts to grievous bodily harm, then we must consider the mens
rea element of the offence that is malice. According to the decision in Savage
and Parmater , the court held that the prosecution needs only to establish
that the defendant foresee that there was some harm, not grievous bodily
harm or the harm intended. So, although Lazim did not foresee that Zoe is
going to suffer grievous bodily harm such as her septic , malice could still be
proven from his action that he could have foresaw some harm come upon
Zoe. Hence, Lazim is liable under s 20 of the Offence Against the
Persons Act.
Under s.18 of the Offence Against the Person Act , the offence Lazim could
be charged for is maliciously cause grievous bodily harm with intent to cause
grievous bodily harm. The actus rea of this offence is cause grievous bodily
harm and the mens rea of this offence is intention to cause grievous bodily
harm. Given the common elements between s. 20 and 18, the main issue
that needs to be considered here is intent to cause grievous bodily harm to
establish the offence under s.18. Such an intent will be decide by the jury. The
more conducive to cause the grievous bodily harm Lazim’s action was the
more the jury will decide that Lazim had intention to cause grievous bodily
harm .If the jury had believed ,given that he is a malicious joker , then he has
committed the offence under s.18 of this Act otherwise he will only be
guilty under s. 20 or s.47 of this Act.
In regards to Eve’s situation , Lazim may have committed an offence under
s. 20
.In relation to the actus rea of this offence , the courts have held that in
Burstow’s
case that there is no distinction between cause and infliction so the
prosecution simply has prove Lazim’s act was intentional, that is to get her
lost. Next, we must establish that grievous bodily harm .This means really
serious injury as held in DPP v Smith. However, although the facts mention
her injury is serious, an injury amounting to grievous bodily harm is
dependent on the jury’s decision .The decision will vary according to the age
and physical health of the victim.
If the jury decides that there is grievous bodily harm the prosecution must
establish the mens rea element that is malice. As mentioned above, the
prosecution only requires to prove that Lazim foresees some harm as opposed
to grievous bodily harm as held in Savage and Parmeter .However, there
is no evidence on the facts that he foresaw any as he only intended her to
get lost. If this is the case , then there is no malice and he may not be
guilty under s.20 of the Act against.
In the final situation, Lazim trip Nor in an attempt to escape from being
arrested by Moeen. Here Lazim may have committed an offence under s.18
of the Offence Against Person Act that is maliciously wound with intent
to resist arrest. The actus rea of this offence is wounding and mens rea of
this offence is malice and intend to resist arrest. In relation to wound, the
prosecution must prove that both the dermis and epidermis part of the skin
is broken. If the cut to her skin constitutes this then it must be shown that
this wound was caused by a blow by the accused intentional action .This
is proven as stick out of the foot to trip
,although not her , was a deliberate act by Lazim. Hence, wounding is
established.
In relation to malice ,in this Lazim could argue that Lazim had no
intention to wound Nor but Mooen so there is no malice .However ,
under the doctrine of transferred malice an offence against a person can
be transferred to another
person. So in this malice toward Mooen can be transferred to Nor. Hence,
malice has been established under the Act .Next, the prosecution must
established that Lazim intends to resist arrest .This is proven as Lazim hides in
door to escape from being arrested. Hence, the mens rea under s.18 is
established.
In the end, Lazim could be criminally liable against Mary ,Nor and Zoe but not
Eve under the Offence Against Person Act
