Teacher resource 7 (possible answers)NFOs revision

The summary table of NFOs allows learners to test their knowledge of the law and relevant cases. This is a great task to do frequently. It is essential that in order to apply the law to application questions that you know the law thoroughly.

Tip: Have this available for learners to complete regularly.

Now that you have studied NFOs complete the worksheet below.

Include the relevant Act, section and maximum sentence / AR / Three key cases / MR / One key case
Assault / To cause v to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. / R v Lamb – no fear and therefore no assault.
Smith v SI of Woking Police – as the threat was imminent the AR was still satisfied.
Logdon v DPP – Holding up a replica gun = assault. The emphasis is on V and what he feared. / Intention or recklessness as to cause v to apprehend immediate, unlawful, personal violence. / R v Venna – subjective recklessness will suffice.
Battery / The infliction of unlawful force from one to another. / R v Thomas – touching someone’s clothing = battery as it is like touching them.
Cole v Turner – the least amount of touching in anger satisfies a battery.
Haystead v DPP – a battery can be caused indirectly. / Intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful force from one to another. / R v Venna – subjective recklessness will suffice.
ABH / As assault (assault or battery) occasioning actual bodily harm. / R v Chan-Fook – ABH can be psychological injury as long as it is more than mere emotions such as fear, panic etc
T v DPP – momentary unconsciousness can amount to ABH.
DPP v Smith – cutting off a ponytail amounted to ABH. / The MR of common assault i.e. assault or battery. / R v Roberts – as D had the MR of battery by touching V’s leg he also had the MR of ABH.
GBH s20 / Nothing less than serious harm. / R v Saunders – defined the AR.
R v Bollom – age, sex, vulnerability of V are factors to consider when looking at this offence.
R v Dica – passing on HIV amounted to GBH. / Intention or recklessness as to cause some harm. / R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter – defined the MR and stated only intention or recklessness as to some harm is required.
Wounding S20 / To break both layers of skin / JCC v Eisenhower – an internal rupture is not a wound.
R v Dume - a wound can be caused indirectly.
Moriarty v Brooks – defines the AR. / The same as the MR for s20 GBH. / Same as the MR for S20 GBH.
GBH s18 / The same as the AR for s20 GBH. / The same as for s20 GBH. / Intention to cause serious harm or resist lawful arrest. / R v Piff – as D deliberately head-butted V and broke his cheekbone he could be charged with s18.
Wounding S18 / The same as for s20 Wounding, / The same as for s20 wounding. / The same as for s18 GBH. / The same for GBH s18.

Extension questions

For s18 recklessness can’t be considered. Therefore, what is used to establish D’s MR?

What two types of intent are there? / Direct and Oblique
What is the difference between the two types? / Direct is where it is D’s aim, objective and purpose to cause the prohibited consequence, in this case GBH. Whereas for oblique intent the test is whether death or GBH is a virtual certainty and D realises this. Obviously, only GBH is relevant here.
What type of crime does this make s18? / Specific intent offence.

Version 1 2 © OCR 2017

Criminal Law