LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Savage; Parmenter (1992) - Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
Key Issue: Mens Rea requirement for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
Facts:
  • Savage: Intentionally threw beer at V. The glass slipped from S's hand, striking V and causing a cut.
  • Parmenter: Roughly handled his child, resulting in broken arms and legs.
Holding:
  • Savage: Not guilty of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm.
  • Parmenter: Guilty of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm.
Legal Principle Established:
The offence of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm requires:
  1. Actus Reus: An assault (either battery or assault in the Fagan sense) causing actual bodily harm.
  2. Mens Rea: The mens rea for common assault (i.e., intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence, or intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful physical force.)
Important Quote (Lord Ackner):
  • "The prosecution are not obliged to prove that the defendant intended to cause some actual bodily harm or was reckless as to whether such harm would be caused."
Analysis & Implications:
  • The mens rea for ABH does not require the defendant to foresee that their actions might cause actual bodily harm.
  • It is sufficient that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the assault (the initial act of causing apprehension or applying force). The actual bodily harm that results need not be intended or foreseen.
  • This ruling lowers the burden of proof for the prosecution in ABH cases, as they only need to prove the mens rea for the initial assault, not for the resulting harm.
Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law