Non-fatal offences against the person — SQE1 Criminal question
A worked single-best-answer question on non-fatal offences against the person, with why each wrong option is wrong — the way SQE1 traps candidates.
Yusuf was blocking the door of a bus. Xavier, impatient to get off, deliberately slapped him on the shoulder to move him aside. Yusuf, who was holding a hot drink, stumbled, fell down the steps and suffered extensive bruising and a chipped tooth. Xavier says he never thought Yusuf could be injured. The CPS is considering which offence to charge.
Which of the following best describes Xavier's liability?
- AXavier is guilty only of battery, because he did not foresee any injury.
- BXavier is guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm, because Yusuf suffered an injury.
- CXavier is guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, because he acted deliberately.
- DXavier is guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, because he intentionally applied unlawful force which caused actual bodily harm.
- EXavier is not guilty of assault, because Yusuf did not apprehend the slap before it happened.
Show answer and reasoning
Rule: For assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the prosecution need prove only the mens rea of the assault or battery, not foresight of any harm.
- A For s 47 there is no need to foresee the harm caused; the mens rea of battery is enough. (wrong rule)
- B Bruising and a chipped tooth amount to actual, not grievous (really serious), bodily harm, and s 20 requires foresight of some harm. (right rule, wrong facts)
- C Section 18 requires an intention to cause grievous bodily harm, which Xavier did not have. (wrong rule)
- E The 'assault' in s 47 includes a battery, which needs no prior apprehension. (answers a different question)
Source: Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 47; R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699
Practise more Criminal Law and Practice All Criminal subtopics