INTRODUCTION
Tom has been involved in an incident at a party and requires his criminal liability to be assessed. There are three potential incidents, all of which involve non-fatal, non-sexual, offences against the person. Therefore, for each incident the law will be considered and then the facts applied to the law.
PAUL/SALLY
The first incident concerns a push on Paul who fell into Sally. Dealing first with Paul, there is no description of the injuries caused which indicated that the focus should be on assault and battery. For the actus reus of assault to be established it would have to be shown that Paul apprehended the possibility of force being applied[1]. Paul expressly states that he did not fear such force and so the actus reus of assault is not satisfied.
The actus reus for battery was determined in Collins v Wilcock[2] as being the infliction of unlawful force. Although there is no indication of lasting injuries the force applied made Paul stumble backwards and so there is an indication that unlawful force was inflicted.
The mens rea for battery is an intention or recklessness as to the likelihood of causing the force. In this case it is clear that the target was Paul. The reasons for wishing to push him are irrelevant for the purpose of establishing a mens rea as was demonstrated by R v Calhaem[3].
It is likely therefore that the prosecution would be able to establish both the actus reus and mens rea for battery against Paul.
Concerning the bruise caused to Sally, assault can be discarded for the same rationale as it was for Paul; Sally could not have feared harm on the facts.
Because of the injury that was caused; a small bruise, it is possible to consider a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act[4]
In R (T) v DPP[5] a brief loss of consciousness was held to be actual bodily harm. In R v Chan Fook[6] the Court of Appeal stated that all that as required was any hurt to “the skin, flesh and bones”. In this case it appears that the bruising that has been sustained would be sufficient to constitute the actus reus of this offence.
Tom could conceivably argue that he did not cause the injury to Sally as he did not hit her in any form. However the doctrine of transferred malice would appear to belay this argument. In Haystead v CC of Derbyshire[7] a child was injured after the Defendant punched the woman holding him. The conviction was upheld. Likewise in R v Latimer[8] the Defendant lashed out and missed his target, accidentally hitting the victim. Regardless of the accidental nature, the doctrine of transferred malice rendered the nature irrelevant.
Therefore it is likely that Tom will have the potential to be charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm in regard to this incident with Sally.
SALLY
Jim kissed Sally against her will. At the time she he was drunk. On the facts that have been provided it is impossible to give a specific analysis of the possible liability. If force was present then there may be a charge of battery. If there are any injuries then there may be a charge for ABH under the principles invoked above.
On a sexual note it is probable that Tom could be charged with sexual assault under Section 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act[9]. All that is required for this is the sexual touching of another person and the absence of consent, both of which clearly occurred in this case.
The existence of alcohol could only be useful if it provided a defence to the issue of consent. In R v Fotheringham[10] the court ruled in a rape case that self-induced intoxication was no defence as it made the belief in consent unreasonable. The same situation would likely apply in this case unless he can point to another indication that he can rely on to demonstrate consent.
JIM
Jim was punched in the face following an approach by the victim holding a water gun. He bled copiously because of a medical condition and serious illness followed. There are therefore two issues; does the particular condition limit the liability and can Tom rely on self-defence?
Tom only intended to cause minor injury but it is clear that the effect of the punch was to cause significant injury. Grievous Bodily Harm under Sections 18 and 20 of the OAPA requires “really serious harm” following DPP v Smith[11] and the need to be taken to hospital suggests that it might be possible to establish the actus reus. Further the sections cover another offence, that of wounding. The actus reus is simply a break in the skin.[12].
The issue of Jim’s medical condition is quickly dealt with. It is enshrined in law that the Defendant must take his or her victim as he or she finds him or her. In R v Martin[13] the victim was in bad health before the attack by the Defendant. This did not exonerate the Defendant following her death. On the wounding charge, the cut appeared before the condition became relevant and so that can also be charged.
On the question of mens rea it is clear that there was intent to cause only minor injuries which evades the section 18 charge that requires specific intent.
Section 20 on the other hand merely requires recklessness to cause “some harm”. It is clear from Tom’s own statement that he intended to cause some harm.
The final issue is self-defence. This has been codified by Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act[14] although the common law is still relevant. The issue according to Re A[15] is whether the Defendant reasonably believed that the force used was necessary. It is then required to show that the force used was reasonable. This is supported by R v Beckford[16] where a pre-emptive strike was allowed.
Tom would have to convince a jury that he actually believed that it was a real gun. If this is shown then the force used would likely be reasonable. If not, then it would likely not be reasonable.
In conclusion it is probable on the facts that Tom will be liable for battery as against Paul, assault occasioning actually bodily harm and sexual assault as against Sally, and will not be liable for the punch thrown against Jim on the grounds of self-defence.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
In re. A (co joined twins) (2000)EWCA Civ 254
R v Beckford (1988)AC 130
R v Calhaem [1985]1 QB 808
R v Chan Fook (1994)2 All ER 552
Collins v Wilcock (1984)3 All ER 274
DPP v Smith (1961)AC 290
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commander (1968) 3 All ER 442
R v Fotheringham (1989)88 Cr App R 206
Haystead v CC of Derbyshire (2000)Crim LR 758
JCC v Eisenhower [1983]3 All ER 230
R v Latimer (1886)17 QBD 359
R v Martin (1832)5 C & P 128
R (T) v DPP [2003]Crim LR 622
R v Tower (1874)12 Cox 692
‘Unlocking Criminal Law’‘J Martin, T Storey’
Published by Hodder & Stoughton
Archbolds Criminal Practice (2006)
Blackstones Criminal Practice (2006)
Footnotes
[1] Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commander (1968) 3 All ER 442)
[12] JCC v Eisenhower [1983] 3 All ER 230
[15] Re A (Co joined twins) (2000) EWCA Civ 254
Updated 16 March 2026
This article was written some years ago and, while the core legal principles it describes remain broadly accurate, readers should be aware of several important developments and limitations.
Self-defence: The article refers only to s.3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and common law. The law on self-defence has since been significantly supplemented by ss.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which codified and clarified the test for reasonable force in self-defence and defence of another. Section 76 is now the primary statutory framework students should engage with. The article’s omission of this provision is a material gap.
Sexual assault: The article correctly identifies s.3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but then confusingly attributes the conduct to ‘Tom’ rather than ‘Jim’, which appears to be a drafting error rather than a legal error. The legal principle itself is accurate. Students should note that questions of consent and reasonable belief in consent under the 2003 Act, including the effect of intoxication, are governed by ss.74–76 of that Act, which the article does not address in any depth.
Actual bodily harm — psychiatric injury: The article cites R v Chan Fook [1994] for the definition of ABH but does not mention that Chan Fook also confirmed psychiatric injury can constitute ABH, a point confirmed by the House of Lords in R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1998] AC 147. This does not make the article wrong, but students should be aware the definition of ABH extends beyond physical hurt.
The OAPA 1861: The footnote incorrectly dates the Offences Against the Person Act as 1987. The correct date is 1861. This is a factual error students should note.
R v Calhaem: This case concerned the law on causation in the context of procuring murder, not mens rea for battery. Its citation in support of the proposition that reasons for pushing are irrelevant to mens rea is questionable and does not represent standard authority for that proposition. The legal point made is not wrong, but the authority used to support it is inapt.
Overall: The article provides a useful introductory framework for non-fatal offences against the person but should be read alongside the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 for self-defence, and with reference to the full provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The core principles on battery, ABH, the thin skull rule, and transferred malice remain good law.
