1. Following Precedent:R v Dica 2004Protection from Harassment Act 1997Draft Offences Against the Person BillPrior Precedent:R v Chan Fook 1994 Meade & Belt 1823Clarence 1888Ratio:Psychiatric harm is included in the phrase ‘bodily harm’Cause and inflict are not synonymous, but cover the same areas, thus it is possible to speak of ‘inflicting psychiatric injury’.Does not require direct or indirect physical application of force.An assault can consist of any act causing the victim to apprehend an immediate application of force upon her, including silent phone calls.R v Ireland, Burstow 1997<br />Following Precedent:Wood v DPP 2008Thomas 1984Smith 2003Prior Precedent:Fagan v MPC 1969Cole v Turner 1707AG’s Reference No.6 of 1980Ratio:The touching of another person, however slight, amounts to battery.Generally speaking, consent is a defence to batteryImplied consent is also a defence to most of the physical contacts of everyday life.Collins v Wilcock 1984<br />Following Precedent:R v Brown 1994Prior Precedent:Wood 1830Shadbolt 1833Waltham 1849Ratio:A wound is a break in the continuity of the whole skin i.e. all its layers.JCC (a minor) v Eisenhower 1983<br />Following Precedent:R v Ireland, Burstow 1997R v Dica 2004<br />Prior Precedent:R v Clarence 1888R v Salisbury (Australia) 1976Ratio:Can return a verdict of assault occasioning ABH, even where D was charged with s.20Infliction of GBH contrary to s.20 without an assault being committed was possible. So, ‘inflict’ is wider than assault, but is it as wide as cause?R v Wilson (Clarence) 1984<br />Following Precedent:R v Savage, Parmenter 1992R v Roberts 1972Prior Precedent:R v Cunningham 1957Ratio:‘Maliciously’ adds nothing to s.18 OAPA as there is specific mens rea mentioned in the section [intent to do GBH] obiterIn s.20, maliciously is the mens rea. This means that it is enough that D should have forseen that some physical harm would come to the person, albeit of a minor character.R v Mowatt (1968)<br />Prior Precedent:R v Coney 1882R v Donovan 1934AG’s Reference No 6 of 1980Following Precedent:R v Wilson 1996R v Emmett 1999Ratio:Can only consent to harm which is ‘transient and trifling’ (i.e. common assault and battery)Confirmed that there can be exceptions to the rule on consent, on the grounds of public policy.Thus, consent was not relevant to ABH or GBH as it is not part of the offence.R v Brown 1994<br />Following Precedent:R v Emmett 1999Prior Precedent:Too old to know!!!Following Precedent:DPP v Khan 1990Haystead v CC of Derbyshire 2000Fagan v MPC 1969Prior Precedent:R v Donovan 1934R v Brown 1994Ratio:Can ‘indirectly’ assault or batter V.D will be taken to have intended the natural consequences of what he didMaliciously doesn’t mean spitefully.Ratio:It was analogous to tattooing or the ‘piercing of nostrils’, and that was able to be consented to so was this.Brown is not a blanket ban on consent to s.47, restricted to the legitimacy of S&M and consent, which were not issues here.Expands on the ‘recognised exceptions’ on grounds of public policy identified in Brown. R v Martin 1881R v Wilson 1996<br />