Talk:Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

Merger

The proposal is to merge the laws of two different jurisdictions. I do not know without research to what extent the Canadian law has departed from the original English model, but in principle, I oppose the proposal. Although the source is the same, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, it seems that Canada now uses a different term which suggests a new statute or body of case law modifying the original so that it matches Canadian requirements. I think it likely to be confusing to have two diverging explanations of more or less the same phrase on the same page. The better course is for someone with knowledge of Canadian law to expand the Canadian stub. David91 03:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I myself do not know much about Canadian Law (or English law, for that matter), though I have heard the term "Assault causing bodily harm" used in Canada. I agree with your decision not to merge the two articles, and will remove the merger tags in ten days unless somebody does not agree. Kareeser|^Talk! 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we a law dictionary or an encyclopedia? Do we need separate Murder articles for each jurisdiction? Ewlyahoocom 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is an encyclopaedia and, not that it is relevant to this particular merger proposal, "yes" we do need and have separate articles for murder because, otherwise, the murder page would be too big and cumbersome if every different facet of the topic by jurisdiction was included. Sorry, what was your vote for this merger proposal? David91 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a wiki is a website that anyone can edit. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 15:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets not get petty. This article should not merged. All of the above arguments for keeping the two articles seperate seem correct. I am currently studying law and, although the statute is important, the law is very much based on cases which are in english law (and i would assume not in canadian law, as far as i know). Wright123 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we remove the merger thing now? Wright123 18:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it because i think everyone agrees. Feel free to put it back up/oppose the removal. Wright123 19:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In relation to the comments in the first paragraph above, if you look at the Canadian definition of "bodily harm" (s.2 of the Criminal Code) it is actually identical to the normal definition of "actual bodily harm" in English law. I suspect that there is actually not a lot of difference between the two offences (or possibly no practical difference). I am not suggesting that that offence should be incorporated in this article.James500 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Mens Rea

I may be wrong but i though the Mens Rea for ABH was there only needs to be enough intention to cause assault and/or battery. i.e. For ABH you only need to be specific intent or subjective recklessness to cause the victim to fear immediate unlawful force and/or to actually apply unlawful force. Wright123 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Even looking up this article shows mens tea. Hair-cutting or nail-cutting without permission is punishable by death. When people are at law to maximize the degree of bodily harm or sexual or physical assault they can "get away with," they have subjected themselves to death under military jurisdiction, especially to the extent that they have organized themselves (technically as an armed and organized militia) via internet or other forums of discussion, armed with sharp instruments to carry out these crimes. tl;dr -- You don't get a trial for this. People of good will simply kill you when they find out you are doing something like this, they get away with killing you, justifiably, and others thank God you are dead. When I think about it, I have to throw in the date-rape drugs and the beverage-spiking to the same category of punishable-by-death-without-trial, because when it comes to military jurisdiction, chemicals are weapons, too. 24.237.158.15 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Imprisonment

"There is a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment (or 7 years if it is racially motivated)."

Nothing really to do with how the article was put together, but who would agree that just because a crime is "racially motivated" it shouldn't mean that they get a longer sentence? What if it was against someone because they were a retard? or if they were fat?

The difference is history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.237.193 (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move

This page has been moved because 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm' is the correct name of this offence and the term 'actual bodily harm' is used independently of this offence, for example in relation to consent and also in an Australian offence, inflicting actual bodily harm, and also in Domestic violence legislation. James500 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Australia

Note to self: "Assault occasioning actual bodily harm" described in more or less those terms precisely, is still an offence in the Australian Capital Terriotory (Crimes Act 1900, s.24)[1] [2] and New South Wales (Crimes Act 1900 (No.40), s.59)[3]; and the offence in South Australia was under section 40 of the 1935 Act [4]; add this information to the article later.James500 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be necessary to create a separate article for these offences. James500 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

note* S.24 crimes act 1900 deals with manslaughter-punishment, the article above is incorrect. assault occasioning actual bodily harm s.59 crimes act 1900 was never in consideration for repeal in NSW ( not sure about anywhere else) and is a serious indictable offence that is a table two catagory offence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.166.201.154 (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The section 24 that I was referring to was this, which is apparently in force in the Australian Capital Territory. I can only infer that either there are two separate Acts called the Crimes Act 1900, or that the Act has a different form in ACT and NSW because it has been amended by one of the two legislatures or both of them. James500 (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Outside of the scope of this article

I think that this article should be about this offence specifically, and that the general discussion of the various offences contained in the paragraph below belongs in an article about offences against the person generally:

In English law, there is a range of non-fatal offences of varying degrees of severity beginning with 'common assault' (the least serious), 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm' (ABH), and the most serious assaults which lead to the victim incurring "grievous bodily harm" ("GBH"), though the causing or inflicting of grievous bodily harm need not be by way of assault.

So I have moved it here until I decide what to do with it.James500 (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And I think that the following material belongs there as well:

Distinction between ABH and GBH

The distinction between assault occasioning actual bodily harm and an offence under section 18 or 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 lies in two areas:

1. The Actus Reus (Guilty Conduct) for assault occasioning actual bodily harm is an assault or battery that occasions minor physical or psychiatric injury, whereas the Actus Reus for grievous bodily harm is wounding or inflicting/causing grievous bodily harm to the victim by any means. This includes major psychiatric injury for both section 18 and section 20.

2. The Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) for assault occasioning actual bodily harm is only that of an assault or battery. There is no requirement for the defendant to have the mens rea as to harming the victim. This is distinguished from the mens rea for grievous bodily harm where in the case of section 20, the Defendant must intend or be reckless as to some harm, and for section 18 the defendant must specifically intend grievous bodily harm to the victim.

R v Morris (Clarence Barrington) - Transcript on BAILII

Please note that the transcript of this case on BAILII is not accurate (it has ", since" where ": such" should be); the quote from that case in the article is accurate, and is cited correctly in R v Mani [2005] SBMC 2 on PacLII (Pacific Legal Information Institute). If you obtain a copy of Archbold you will see that the quote in the article is accurate.

Note

(Wilfully causing) actual bodily harm is an offence in Samoa under s.80 of the Crimes Ordinance 1961 [5]. There are others like this. It will definately be necessary to have a seperate article for actual bodily harm. James500 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

From assault

I have moved the following material from the article assault so that it can be incorporated into this article.James500 (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Occasioning simply means that the injury was caused by the accused's assault, either directly or indirectly, provided that the injury be the natural consequence of the accused's assault. In R. v. Roberts, . . . The offence is punishable by . . . an unlimited fine . . .

I have now mentioned the fine in the article. I am not prepared to describe it as "unlimited" for the reason that, although there is no sum specified as a maximum fine, the court is not, IIRC, allowed to impose a fine that the defendant simply cannot pay.James500 (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume that the following sentence is an error of sense and that the remarks about the meaning of actual bodily harm are those from R v Donovan which are already mentioned in the text and are not from R v Roberts, to which case they are not attributted in the text.James500 (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In R. v. Roberts, it was held that Actual bodily harm means any injury which interferes with the health or comfort of the complainant in such a way as to not be merely transitory or trifling: R. v. Donovan.

Cut

I have cut the following from the section on the racially/religiously aggravated offence. I can't find any evidence that this is true. I think it is probably due to someone's misunderstanding of chapter 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (i.e. mistakenly thinking that this is a "serious offence" for the purposes of that chapter and not just a "specified offence").James500 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This law was changed in 2003 and can now carry a sentence of up to life inprisonment.

Occasioning

I have doubts about the following passage in the article:

"This is usually taken to mean the same as "causing" i.e. it includes both acts and omissions."

No authority is cited in support of this. Archbold, 1999, para 19-166 says that psychic assault cannot be committed by "a mere omission to act" and cites a number of cases that it says supports this. The passage from Fagan v MPC in the article (not cited by Archbold) seems to say the same thing. The passage from R v Williams says battery is "an act" by which the defendant does this, that and the other. So I am going to remove the words "i.e. it includes both acts and omissions" because I am not sure if that is correct.James500 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think that there is an old maxim that says "not doing is no trespass".James500 (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

R v Clarence

I do not think the following passage is correct:

"In R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, at a time when the defendant knew that he was suffering from a venereal disease, he had sexual intercourse and communicated the disease to his wife. The court was reluctant to consider this an injury within the meaning of the Act."

Having looked at the report of this case in "The Law Reports" by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting, I cannot find anything that appears to be an assertion that Mrs Clarence did not in fact suffer bodily harm. As far as I can see, the judges who were in favour of quashing the conviction seem to have been concerned with the meaning of the words "inflict" and "assault" in sections 20 and 47 respectively. Some of them appear to say expressly that the wife had suffered grievous bodily harm. The judgement is lengthy (a little over 43 pages) and it is possible that I have missed something. But in the absence of some further source, such as a textbook or something published in one of the journals, I think I am going to have to remove this assertion altogether. James500 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Cut

I have cut the following passage from the introduction. There is no source. I am not certain that the word "substantial" has exactly the same meaning as "more than merely transient or trifling" etc. I think that the name of this offence is probably self-explanatory. I am not certain that offences under this section typically require medical treatment either.James500 (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It encompasses those assaults which result in substantial injuries, typically requiring a degree of medical treatment for the victim.

United Kingdom

While acknowledging that UK law on assault tends to influence many other common-law jurisdictions, this section is way too long. It's a long list of sentences quoted from judgements, without any explanation or context. What's needed is an explanation of the present state of practice, and an explanation of how we got here.

IANAL! But my understanding is that if I wave my clenched fist at you, that is assault; if I wave it, and then punch you hard enough to (say) break your lip, that is assault and battery, now known as "assault occasioning actual bodily harm" (ABH); and if you end up in traction in hospital, that is "assault occasioning grievous bodily harm" (GBH). Clearly, there are judgements to be made, so case-law is interesting and relevant; but Wikipedia readers are not, in general, competent to evaluate case-law. It needs to be explained by a Secondary source.

MrDemeanour (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)