Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (often abbreviated to Assault OABH, AOABH or simply ABH) is a statutory [1] offence of aggravated assault [2] in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Hong Kong and the Solomon Islands.
Ordinarily, there is a criminal act, which is what makes the term actus reus generally acceptable. But there are crimes without an act, and therefore without an actus reus in the obvious meaning of that term. The expression 'conduct' is more satisfactory, because wider; it covers not only an act but an omission, and (by a stretch) a bodily ...
A judge is free on the facts of the case to allow a jury find a defendant guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm where a defendant is charged with a section 20 offence. [40] The actus reus is the wound or infliction of grievous bodily harm (GBH).
The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, [2] i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". [3] [4] As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. [5] [6] Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.
The case of DPP v Santana-Bermudez [4] examined a similar principle, in which the defendant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 as a result of omitting to inform a police officer when questioned, that he had on his pocket a sharp object (needle).
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (and derivative offences) Inflicting grievous bodily harm or causing grievous bodily harm with intent (and derivative offences) [2] These crimes are usually grouped together in common law countries as a legacy of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
The judges considered the DPP's submission that Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner and R v Roberts showed that willful omission could be sufficient actus reus. [1] The court also considered the case of R v Miller where it was held that recklessly failing to take action when the defendant created a dangerous situation was enough for actus ...
Similarly, causing gross bodily harm with intent (contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861) has a matching mens rea and yet is also considered a crime of specific intent. [9] Lord Simon's judgement in the same case advanced a different definition: crimes of specific intent required a "purposive element".