Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person
🔍 What Are Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person?
These are criminal offences where harm is caused to a person, but not death. They're mostly found under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861) and common law in England and Wales.
📚 Key Non-Fatal Offences (in order of seriousness):
| Offence | Statute / Law | Max Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| Assault | Common law | 6 months |
| Battery | Common law | 6 months |
| Assault occasioning ABH | Section 47, OAPA 1861 | 5 years |
| Wounding / Inflicting GBH | Section 20, OAPA 1861 | 5 years |
| Wounding / Causing GBH with intent | Section 18, OAPA 1861 | Life imprisonment |
⚖️ Landmark Case Law (More than Five Cases)
1. Collins v. Wilcock (1984) – Assault and Battery
Facts:
A police officer grabbed a woman’s arm without arresting her.
She scratched the officer in response and was charged with assault.
Held:
The officer had no legal right to touch her — his action was a battery.
The court defined assault as causing someone to fear unlawful force, and battery as applying that force.
Key Principle:
Even minimal, unwanted touching can amount to battery.
Consent or legal authority is essential.
2. R v. Ireland (1998) – Assault (Psychological harm)
Facts:
The defendant made silent phone calls to three women, causing psychological harm and fear.
Held:
Silence can amount to assault if it causes the victim to fear immediate unlawful violence.
Psychological injury can be actual bodily harm (ABH) under s.47.
Key Principle:
Words (or silence) alone can amount to assault.
ABH includes psychological injury, not just physical harm.
3. R v. Chan-Fook (1994) – ABH under Section 47
Facts:
A man was locked in a room and verbally abused.
He claimed actual bodily harm due to mental distress.
Held:
Confirmed that psychiatric injury (if medically recognised) can count as ABH.
Must be more than mere emotions like fear or panic.
Key Principle:
ABH includes clinically recognised psychological harm, not just cuts or bruises.
4. DPP v. Smith (2006) – ABH (Hair cutting)
Facts:
Defendant cut off his girlfriend’s ponytail during an argument.
Charged with assault occasioning ABH.
Held:
Cutting off a substantial part of someone’s hair is ABH, even without physical injury.
Key Principle:
ABH can include damage to hair as part of the body.
5. R v. Savage; R v. Parmenter (1992) – ABH and GBH
Facts:
Savage threw beer at a woman; the glass slipped and cut her.
She claimed it was GBH, but Savage said it was unintentional.
Held:
The defendant does not need to intend ABH for s.47 (ABH).
But for s.20 (GBH), must at least foresee some harm.
Key Principle:
Section 47 only requires intent or recklessness for assault, not for the actual harm.
Section 20 requires foreseeability of some harm.
6. R v. Dica (2004) – GBH (Biological harm)
Facts:
The defendant, knowing he had HIV, had unprotected sex with two women without disclosing his status.
They became infected.
Held:
Knowingly transmitting a serious disease can be GBH under s.20.
Key Principle:
Biological harm can be GBH.
Consent is not valid if there’s no informed knowledge of the risk.
7. R v. Bollom (2004) – GBH (Vulnerability of victim)
Facts:
A baby suffered bruising and cuts.
The defendant claimed it was not serious enough for GBH.
Held:
The court considered the age and vulnerability of the victim.
What might be ABH in an adult could be GBH in a child.
Key Principle:
GBH is assessed based on totality of harm and characteristics of the victim.
8. R v. Belfon (1976) – GBH with Intent (Section 18)
Facts:
Defendant attacked someone with a razor, causing serious wounds.
Claimed he didn’t intend GBH, just to scare.
Held:
For s.18, prosecution must prove specific intent to cause really serious harm.
Key Principle:
Section 18 is the most serious non-fatal offence.
Requires clear intention — recklessness is not enough.
🔚 Summary Table
| Case | Offence Type | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Collins v. Wilcock (1984) | Assault/Battery | Minimal force without consent = battery |
| R v. Ireland (1998) | Assault / ABH | Silence/words can cause assault or ABH |
| R v. Chan-Fook (1994) | ABH (s.47) | Psychiatric injury = ABH if medically recognised |
| DPP v. Smith (2006) | ABH (s.47) | Cutting hair = ABH |
| R v. Savage (1992) | ABH / GBH | No need to intend harm for ABH; foresee harm for GBH |
| R v. Dica (2004) | GBH (s.20) | Transmitting disease = GBH |
| R v. Bollom (2004) | GBH (s.20) | Age/vulnerability affects seriousness of harm |
| R v. Belfon (1976) | GBH with intent | s.18 needs specific intent to cause serious harm |
🧠 Quick Recap
Assault = causing fear of unlawful violence.
Battery = unlawful physical contact.
ABH (s.47) = injury beyond trifling (e.g., bruises, psychiatric harm).
GBH (s.20) = “really serious harm” (may include disease or severe bruising).
GBH with intent (s.18) = intentional infliction of serious injury.
RELATED Blog
0 comments