3.2 - Non-fatal offences against the person

The Harm And Fault Ladder

Non-fatal offences protect bodily security without requiring death. AQA expects them to be taught in escalating seriousness because the offence usually turns on two questions:

1. What happened to V? This identifies the harm level: apprehension, force, actual bodily harm, wound or grievous bodily harm.
2. What fault did D have? This identifies whether D intended or was subjectively reckless as to force, some harm, or serious harm.

Use this ladder before you write detail:

This order matters in scenario answers. Start with the most appropriate offence suggested by the facts. If V suffers a deep wound or serious injury, spending most of the answer on simple battery is usually poor issue selection. If there is no injury, s47, s20 and s18 should not become the main answer unless the facts create a separate later injury.

The word unlawful reminds you that not every contact or threat is criminal. Ordinary social contact, properly consented contact and justified force may fall outside liability. In most AQA non-fatal questions, however, the key issue is not consent but the correct match between harm, fault and charge.

Assault

Assault is a common-law offence within common assault, and it does not require any touching.

Break the actus reus into three checks:

The authorities help with boundaries. In Tuberville v Savage, words showing that no force would be used at that time prevented an assault. In R v Ireland, silent telephone calls could amount to assault if they caused the victim to apprehend immediate violence. In Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police, seeing the defendant outside a window could satisfy immediacy because the victim feared what he might do next. These cases are tools for applying the immediacy and apprehension requirements; do not list them without linking them to the facts.

The mens rea can be direct intention, such as D sending a threat to frighten V, or subjective recklessness, where D realises V may apprehend immediate unlawful force and takes that risk. The prosecution does not have to prove D intended to carry out the threatened force, only that D intended or was reckless as to V apprehending it.

Apply assault tightly. If D says, "I will hit you now," raises a bottle and V steps back expecting immediate violence, the actus reus is strong: V apprehends immediate unlawful force. The mens rea is also strong if D used the words and gesture deliberately to make V back away. If D says, "I will get you next month," with no present ability or immediacy, assault is much weaker.

Battery

Battery is the other common-law offence within common assault.

Force can be slight. It does not have to injure V. In Collins v Wilcock, the court recognised that everyday physical contacts are generally outside battery, but hostile or unjustified touching can be unlawful force. Battery can be indirect: in DPP v K, setting up a harmful substance that later made contact with the victim supported battery. The act can also be continuing where D creates and maintains the contact, as in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Battery still requires a voluntary act. If A is pushed by D into V and A has no control over the movement, A does not commit the actus reus of battery against V. AQA examiner commentary highlights this as a common short-answer issue: students must address voluntariness rather than drifting into mens rea when the actus reus is missing.

Use this operational test:

1. Act: Did D voluntarily apply force, directly or indirectly?
2. Unlawful: Was the contact more than ordinary or consented social contact, and not otherwise justified?
3. Victim: Was force applied to another person?
4. Fault: Did D intend the contact or realise the risk of applying unlawful force and take it?

For example, if D deliberately flicks water into V's face during an argument, the force is slight but direct and unlawful. If D throws a bag into a door and the bag unexpectedly rebounds into V, the issue is mens rea: did D foresee the risk of contact with V? If not, battery may fail even though contact occurred.

Section 47 Actual Bodily Harm

Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 covers assault or battery occasioning actual bodily harm. It is a constructive liability offence: the defendant must have the mens rea for assault or battery, but does not need to intend or foresee the actual bodily harm.

The actus reus has three stages:

The mens rea is often where students lose precision. R v Savage supports the point that D need only intend or be reckless as to the assault or battery. D can be guilty of s47 even if the injury is more serious than D expected, provided the assault or battery caused ABH. That is why a deliberate shove causing V to fall and suffer bruising or temporary injury may move beyond battery into s47.

Causation should be handled, not assumed. In R v Roberts, a victim's response to a threat did not break the chain where the response was reasonably foreseeable. In R v Blaue, D had to take the victim as found, so a victim's particular vulnerability or decision did not automatically remove causation. In an AQA answer, link those principles to the specific injury rather than naming causation cases in a block.

The common confusion is to write, "D intended ABH." That may be true on the facts, but it is not required. The legal minimum is mens rea for the underlying assault or battery. Your conclusion should say: "s47 is likely because the battery caused ABH, and D intended or was reckless as to the battery, even if D did not foresee the full injury."

Sections 20 And 18 Wounding Or GBH

Sections 20 and 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 use similar actus reus language but different mens rea thresholds. AQA often rewards answers that explain the shared actus reus first, then separate the fault requirement.