Section 47 Of The Offences Against The Person Act 1861

Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861: Assault and Battery Explained

Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861) criminalizes assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). This seemingly simple section has been the subject of much legal interpretation and case law, highlighting its complexity and importance in the English criminal justice system. Understanding its nuances requires examining the individual elements of the offense: assault, battery, and actual bodily harm. This article delves deep into Section 47, exploring its components, relevant case law, and practical applications.

Introduction: Understanding the Scope of Section 47

Section 47 itself doesn't explicitly define its elements; instead, it relies on the common law definitions of assault and battery. It states:

“Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable…”.

This concise phrasing belies the significant implications of a conviction under this section. The maximum penalty is five years' imprisonment, underscoring the seriousness of the offense. The key to understanding Section 47 lies in understanding its constituent parts:

• Assault: This involves causing another person to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. It's crucial to note that no physical contact is necessary for an assault to occur. The victim must genuinely believe that violence is imminent.
• Battery: This involves the unlawful application of force to another person. Even the slightest touch can constitute battery, provided it's unlawful. Unlike assault, battery requires physical contact.
• Actual Bodily Harm (ABH): This element requires the prosecution to prove that the assault or battery caused some harm beyond mere transient or trifling injuries. The definition is broad and encompasses a wide range of injuries.

Let's examine each element in detail.

Assault: The Apprehension of Violence

Assault, in the context of Section 47, is defined as an act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. This involves two key components:

1. Actus Reus (the guilty act): This is the act of causing another person to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. This doesn't require any physical contact; it’s about the victim's perception of imminent harm. A threatening gesture, a menacing phone call, or even words can constitute assault if they create a reasonable apprehension of immediate violence.

2. Mens Rea (the guilty mind): The prosecution must prove that the defendant either intended to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence or was reckless as to whether such apprehension would be caused. Recklessness is established if the defendant foresaw the risk of causing such apprehension and went ahead anyway. This subjective test focuses on what the defendant knew or foresaw.

Case Law on Assault: Cases like R v Ireland [1998] AC 147 clarified that silent phone calls could constitute assault, emphasizing the psychological impact of the defendant's actions on the victim. The crucial element is the victim's reasonable apprehension of imminent violence, not the defendant's specific intention.

Battery: The Unlawful Application of Force

Battery, unlike assault, requires physical contact. It’s defined as the unlawful application of force to another person. This application of force doesn't need to be violent; even a slight touch can suffice if it's unlawful and without consent.

1. Actus Reus: The actus reus of battery is the application of force. This can be direct (e.g., punching someone) or indirect (e.g., causing something to hit someone). It's important to note that the force doesn't need to be significant; even a very light touch can constitute battery if it's unwanted.

2. Mens Rea: Similar to assault, the mens rea for battery can be either intention or recklessness. The defendant must have intended to apply force or been reckless as to whether force would be applied. Again, the focus is on what the defendant knew or foresaw.

Case Law on Battery: Cases have illustrated the broad scope of battery. Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439 established that the actus reus and mens rea can coincide at different times. In this case, the defendant accidentally drove onto a police officer's foot but only formed the mens rea after realizing what he had done. The court considered this a continuing act, satisfying the requirement for concurrence of actus reus and mens rea.

Actual Bodily Harm (ABH): Defining the Harm

The third element crucial to a Section 47 charge is actual bodily harm. This isn't strictly defined in the statute but has been interpreted through case law to mean any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. This is a broad definition and includes a wide range of injuries.

• Examples of ABH: Bruises, cuts, grazes, swellings, black eyes, temporary loss of consciousness, psychiatric injury, and minor fractures are all considered ABH. The harm doesn't have to be permanent or serious, but it must be more than merely transient or trifling.

• What doesn't constitute ABH: Minor scratches, redness, or temporary discomfort are generally not considered ABH. The injury must be more significant than this. However, the threshold is relatively low, and the cumulative effect of multiple minor injuries can constitute ABH.

Case Law on ABH: Cases highlight the broad interpretation of ABH. R v Miller [1954] 2 QB 282 established that psychiatric injury can constitute ABH. This broadened the scope significantly beyond purely physical injuries.

The Causal Link: Connecting Assault/Battery to ABH

A crucial element of Section 47 is proving a causal link between the assault or battery and the ABH. The prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant's actions directly or indirectly caused the victim's injuries. This doesn't require the defendant to foresee the extent of the injury; it only requires that their actions were a significant cause of the harm. The "but for" test is applied, meaning the injury wouldn't have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions.

Defences to Section 47 Charges

Several defences can be raised against a Section 47 charge, including:

• Consent: If the victim consented to the act that caused the ABH, this can be a complete defence. However, consent is not a defence to all forms of harm. The courts have drawn a distinction between consent to violence in sporting contexts and consent to violence outside these contexts. Consent must be genuine, informed, and freely given.

• Self-defence: If the defendant used reasonable force to defend themselves or another person from attack, this can be a complete defence. The force used must be proportionate to the threat faced.

• Lawful arrest: Police officers and other authorized individuals may use force in the course of a lawful arrest. However, the force used must be reasonable and proportionate.

• Insanity or diminished responsibility: These are mental health-related defences that can negate the mens rea required for the offence.

Section 47 vs. Other Offences: Distinguishing the Charges

Section 47 sits within a hierarchy of offences against the person. It's crucial to understand how it differs from other, more serious, charges:

• Section 20 OAPA 1861 (Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm): This section requires a higher threshold of harm than Section 47. Grievous bodily harm (GBH) typically involves more serious injuries that result in significant long-term effects or impairment.

• Section 18 OAPA 1861 (Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent): This is the most serious offence under the OAPA 1861. It requires proof that the defendant intended to cause GBH or intended to resist lawful arrest.

Conclusion: The Significance of Section 47

Section 47 of the OAPA 1861 remains a significant part of English criminal law. While seemingly straightforward, the interpretation of its elements – assault, battery, and actual bodily harm – requires a nuanced understanding of common law principles and a substantial body of case law. Prosecuting a case under Section 47 requires demonstrating the actus reus and mens rea of each element and establishing a clear causal link between the defendant's actions and the victim's injuries. This detailed analysis highlights the complexity and importance of this frequently used section within the criminal justice system. The broad scope of the definition of ABH and the flexibility in interpreting the mens rea underscore the prosecutorial discretion involved in applying Section 47. Understanding these elements is crucial for both legal professionals and the public alike.