Crime CIV – s.47 of the Offences Against Person Act (1861) I

By -

s.47 of the Offences Against Persons Act (1861) reads as follows:-

“ Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable  . . . (to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years) . . . ; and whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment for a common assault shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding (two years).”

Actual bodily harm per se is defined as minor injuries including cuts, bruises, lacerations, or any other harmful act that causes the victim to suffer from some form of injury and it does not only include physical injury but also includes psychiatric injury see R v Burstow (1997) and R v Ireland (1998)

Assault is a prerequisite to obtaining a s.47 conviction. Assault  is defined as  the act of intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence i.e. it is an offence that can be committed intentionally or an offence that can be committed without giving due thought to the impact that it would have on the victim.
In order to convict for assault the prosecution does not have to proof or establish physical injury and therefore it stands to reason that in order to obtain a conviction under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (1861) the prosecution does not need to proof or establish physical injury either and it gives the prosecution some scope to convict defendants for causing or precipitating psychiatric illnesses.

A conviction under s.47 of the Offences Against Person Act (1861) is more serious that a conviction for assault (assault is a summary offence). The maximum sentence for a s.47 conviction is 7 years whereas the maximum sentence for an assault is only 6 months.

However a s.47 offence is considered a less serious offence when compared to a s18 or a s20 offence of the Offences Against Person Act (1861). Whether an act will amount to an assault or otherwise depends on the facts see R v Wilson (1955).
It is also possible to substitute a s.20 conviction of the Offences Against Person Act 1861 with a s.47 conviction see R v Bollom (2004).

Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Reactions:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tort XXXI - Causation XVII

By -
In AB v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust (2004) three families brought an action for the removal of tissue and organs from the bodies of their deceased children without first obtaining the consent of the parents against the relevant authority. The tissue and the organs were removed after a post mortem and the parents only became aware of the details many years later. The parents sued.
The court held that the removal of tissue and organs from the bodies of the children without informing the parents first or without obtaining their consent violated the duty health care professionals owed to parents.
In Barber v Somerset County Council (2004) an aging teacher, aged 52 at the time, was employed by a school. The teacher was over burdened by the duties that were given to him and despite repeatedly requesting that the workload be shared, the school did not make the effort to delegate some of the teacher’s duties and as a result the teacher suffered from a breakdown and other related psychosom…
Read more

Areca Nuts

By -
Image
The areca nut or as it is more commonly known the betel nut because it is chewed wrapped up in the betel leaf is one of the lesser known nuts (nuts are not classified as fruits or vegetables and as far as the world food production index is concerned nuts are categorized as a separate food) but nonetheless there is enough demand for it in the world to make both commercial production and export viable. 
The areca nut is the fruit of the areca palm. The tree resembles a coconut tree in many ways, with a long narrow trunk and long thin pointy sporadic leaves at the top, and no branches. The tree ranges from heights of about 4.7 m to slightly over 6 m with a trunk that is wider at the top, so there is plenty of space for the leaves to sprout and grow, and somewhat smaller below the leafing area.
It takes at least a couple of years for the tree to start fruiting, if not more, and like most palm trees it takes time to mature, at least 10 years on average, and can continue fruiting anywhere fro…
Read more

Tort XXVIII - Causation XIV

By -
In Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council (2000) the plaintiff was a young student who suffered from dyslexia (a condition that makes learning difficult). The plaintiff was not performing up to the expected level in school and with the help of the local authority an educational psychologist was enlisted to determine the causes of the plaintiff’s learning difficulties. The psychologist failed to pick up that the plaintiff suffered from dyslexia and as a result the plaintiff suffered from much emotional distress. The plaintiff sued and was successful.
There is a duty owed by the relevant authorities to ensure that children with learning difficulties are given the help that they needed and that help would have been possible and forthcoming if the cause of the child’s learning difficulty had been identified. Addressing these problems at an early stage could make the difference between a child achieving his or her full potential or falling short of what he or she could become.
In Kent v …
Read more

Tort XXVI - Causation XII

By -
In Barrett (AP) v Enfield London Borough Council (1999) the plaintiff was placed in foster care and as a result he suffered from a psychological illness and turned out to be an alcoholic. The plaintiff sued the council for placing him in foster care on the grounds that he may have turned out to be a better person and may not have suffered from a psychological illness had he not been placed in foster care.
The foster care system is not without its faults and it is different from adoption. Under the system children are normally placed by the authorities concerned in the care of carers, groups homes or in the care of care-givers and in the past the system has attracted its fair share of criticism.
The question that is to be asked here is should the council be held responsible if the child is placed in the care of a family or a group home that isn’t quite suited to play the role of foster parents? The answer is yes and the plaintiff was successful. The council owed a duty of care to ensure …
Read more

Tort XXIII - Causation IX

By -
In John Munroe (Acrylics) Ltd v London Fire and Civil Defense Authority (1997) the fire brigade was called in to put out a fire on an adjoining property. The firemen inspected the area and once they’d finished, they left the scene believing that the fire had been put out but failed to take note of some soldering debris. Once they had left, the fire started again and spread to the plaintiff’s property and caused damaged to his property. The plaintiff sued but was unsuccessful.
The court held that there was no duty owed. The standard of care that is imposed on the fire brigade is similar to that which is owed by the police and applying the principle in Hill v Chief Constable of Yorkshire (1989) the court found that imposing a duty under the circumstances would impede the fire brigade and would not allow them to carry out their duties efficiently. It would lead to defensive firefighting in that firemen would be more concerned or may become preoccupied with the liabilities that may be impo…
Read more

Tort XXVII - Causation XIII

By -
In Griffiths v Brown and Lindsay (1999) a taxi driver dropped a drunk passenger off close to his destination, by a pedestrian crossing, seated in an upright position. An action was brought against the taxi driver because there was a risk, given the state he was in, that something undesirable may happen.
The question before the courts was whether there was a duty owed by the taxi driver to his passenger. The court held that a duty only existed for as long as the passenger remained in the car and the duty would be that of a reasonable and competent driver. The duty ended when the passenger got out of the car and the duty could not be extended beyond that.
Passengers in a taxi or a cab have a tendency to change their minds during the trip and they can hop off at any point or place, along the way, that they choose to or desire. It is impossible to impose a duty on a taxi driver or to compel him or her to take the passenger to his or her destination or the destination that was agreed upon wh…
Read more

Elements in a Contract V – Consideration

By -
Having identified the first two elements in a contract, offer and acceptance, let’s move on to the third, consideration. Consideration can be in the form of abstaining from performing an act, it could be in the form of performing an act or acts stipulated by the offeror as in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893), it could be inferred or implied by conduct as in the case of Brogden v Metropolitan Rly Co. (1877) and it could be part consideration provided in lieu of completing the terms stipulated in a contract, Dahlia v Four Millbank Nominees (1978).
In Currie v Misa (1875) it was held that consideration from the perspective of the law may consist of some right, benefit, interest or profit accruing to the party or some loss, sufferance, detriment, or responsibility incurred by the party.
Consideration must be distinguished from an outright gift and therefore it has to be either expressly or impliedly requested for by the promisor. In Dahlia v Four Millbank Nominees (1978) …
Read more

Elements in a Contract VII - Express Terms I

By -
Now that we have identified the prerequisites to a contract, it is time for us to take a closer look at the terms in a contract, after it has come into existence. Terms may be either express or implied. The terms in a contract can be made orally, in writing or part orally and part in writing.
Whether an oral statement made prior to entering into a contract becomes a term of the contract or otherwise is dependent on the facts of the case. When a statement is made, without which the parties would not have entered into the contract to start with, the statement becomes a part of the contract.
In Bannerman v White (1861), the plaintiff (claimant) agreed to purchase some hops from the defendant for brewing purposes. The plaintiff stipulated that the hops must not be treated with sulphur prior to the purchase because it was intended for use in the manufacture of a consumable product.
The defendant assured the plaintiff that the hops had not been treated with sulphur but as it turned out they we…
Read more

Tort XXII - Causation VIII

By -
In Margereson & Hancock v JW Roberts Ltd (1996) two children, the plaintiffs, who grew up playing close to a factory, later had cancer because they were exposed to asbestos dust from the factory. The plaintiffs sued.
Despite the fact that the damage suffered was removed from the time the plaintiffs were close to the factory, they were successful. The court held that it was foreseeable that the defendants’ negligence in allowing the contaminants to escape would lead to some type of illness or other to anyone that came in contact with the pollutants and that illness may be detached from the time the victims were exposed to the contaminants.
Delay in the impact of being exposed to pollutants is a facet of environmental damage and illnesses incurred as a result of being exposed to fumes and dusts released from factories often manifest or materialize at a later time or place.
In OLL v Secretary of State for the Home Department (1996) 8 boys, 2 teachers and an instructor were lost during a…
Read more

Tort XXIX - Causation XV

By -
In Farrell v Avon Health Authority (2001) the plaintiff was a father who’d been told that his newborn baby had died. Shocked by the news the father succumbed to a psychiatric illness. Soon afterwards he was told that the baby was alive and that the hospital had made a mistake. Regardless of the fact that he’d been told that the baby was well, the illness that he succumbed to exacerbated the other problems that he had namely drinking and drug addiction. The plaintiff sued.
The court held that the father was a primary victim and the category of primary victim was broadened following the limitation set by Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) which defined a primary victim as someone who fears for his or her own safety and as a result suffers from nervous shock or succumbs to a psychiatric illness.
Nevertheless, as per the decision in McLoughlin v O'Brian (1983) the father was entitled to claim. Any parent who succumbs to nervous shock either as a result of witnessing the …
Read more