Common Offences Guide

Actus reus

• Assault: cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence (threat only — no touch required).
• Battery: intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another (even slight — e.g. spitting, grabbing).
• Force must be unlawful — lawful authority or valid consent negates the actus reus.

Mens rea

• Intention to cause apprehension of immediate violence (assault), or intention/recklessness as to applying force (battery).
• Recklessness means the defendant foresaw the risk and went ahead anyway (subjective test).

Verified case law

• Fagan v MPC[1969] 1 QB 439

  A continuing act can satisfy the actus reus of battery where the defendant maintains a situation they created.

• Collins v Wilcock[1984] 3 All ER 374

  Not every touch is battery; force must be intentional or reckless and outside the scope of ordinary social contact.

• R v Venna[1976] QB 421

  Mens rea for battery is intention or recklessness as to applying force.

Common defences

Self-defence (s.76 CJIA 2008) · Consent (within lawful bounds) · Prevention of crime · Lawful arrest/resistance issues

Actus reus

• An assault or battery (see above) that causes actual bodily harm.
• ABH means more than trivial or transient harm — bruising, cuts, lost teeth, recognisable psychiatric injury (not mere fear/distress).
• Causation: the assault must have caused the harm (operating and substantial cause).

Mens rea

• Same mens rea as for the underlying assault or battery only — no need to intend or foresee ABH.
• If the prosecution proves intentional/reckless assault and ABH resulted, s.47 is made out.

Verified case law

• R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter[1992] 1 AC 699

  For s.47 OAPA, mens rea is that for common assault only; for s.20, subjective foresight of some physical harm is required.

• R v Chan-Fook[1994] 1 WLR 689

  Psychiatric injury can amount to ABH if a recognised clinical condition; mere fear, panic or distress is not ABH.

• R v Donovan[1934] 2 KB 498

  ABH must be more than transient or trifling harm.

Common defences

Deny assault/battery · Self-defence · Causation break (novus actus) · Consent (rare for ABH — see R v Brown)

Actus reus

• Wound: break in the continuity of the whole skin (both layers); or inflict/cause grievous bodily harm.
• GBH means really serious harm — includes serious psychiatric injury and serious permanent disability.

Mens rea

• Intention or recklessness as to causing some physical harm — need not be GBH-level harm.
• "Maliciously" requires subjective foresight of some harm (Cunningham recklessness), not Caldwell recklessness.

Verified case law

• R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter[1992] 1 AC 699

  For s.47 OAPA, mens rea is that for common assault only; for s.20, subjective foresight of some physical harm is required.

• R v Cunningham[1957] 2 QB 396

  "Maliciously" in the 1861 Act requires subjective foresight of harm (Cunningham recklessness).

Common defences

Deny causation · Self-defence · No foresight/intent for any harm (accident) · Intoxication (limited — basic intent)

Actus reus

• Wound or cause grievous bodily harm (as for s.20).

Mens rea

• Specific intent: intention to cause GBH, or intention to resist/prevent lawful arrest and GBH results.
• Recklessness is not enough for the main limb — the prosecution must prove purpose to cause really serious harm.

Verified case law

• R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter[1992] 1 AC 699

  For s.47 OAPA, mens rea is that for common assault only; for s.20, subjective foresight of some physical harm is required.

Common defences

Deny intent for GBH (only s.20 if recklessness as to some harm) · Self-defence · Deny identification · Voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent if supported by facts

Actus reus

• Dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another.
• Appropriation: any assumption of the rights of an owner (including where the owner consented if obtained by deception).
• Property: money, goods, land, things in action, etc. (s.4).

Mens rea

• Dishonesty (Ivey test): (1) ascertain the defendant's actual belief about the facts; (2) was the conduct dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people?
• Intention to permanently deprive (or treat as own to dispose of) — borrowing may suffice if for the period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking (s.6).

Verified case law

• Ivey v Genting Casinos[2017] UKSC 67

  The Ghosh test is no longer law; dishonesty is assessed objectively after establishing the defendant's actual belief about the facts.

• DPP v Gomez[1993] AC 442

  Appropriation can occur even where the owner consented if obtained by deception.

• R v Lloyd[1985] 1 QB 653

  Borrowing can amount to theft if there is intention to treat the goods as own to dispose of.

Common defences

Honest belief in legal right · Honest belief owner would consent · No intention to permanently deprive · No dishonesty on Ivey test

Actus reus

• Enter any building or part of a building as a trespasser.
• With intent to steal, inflict GBH, or do unlawful damage (s.9(1)(a)); OR having entered as trespasser, steal/attempt GBH/unlawful damage (s.9(1)(b)).
• Building includes inhabited vehicles/vessels (s.9(4)).

Mens rea

• Knowledge or recklessness as to trespass at time of entry.
• For s.9(1)(a): intent at time of entry; for s.9(1)(b): mens rea for the ulterior offence when inside.

Verified case law

• R v Walkington[1979] 1 WLR 1169

  Entering a part of a building beyond permitted areas can be entry as a trespasser if the defendant knew or was reckless.

• R v Collins[1973] QB 100

  Entry as a trespasser requires knowledge or recklessness as to lack of permission; mistaken belief in consent may negate trespass.

Common defences

No trespass (permission to enter) · No intent for ulterior offence (s.9(1)(a)) · Deny entry / identification · Inside building but not as trespasser

Actus reus

• Theft (s.1) plus force or threat of force immediately before or at time of doing so, or immediately after to secure the stolen goods.
• Force need not be substantial — a push or snatch with force can suffice.

Mens rea

• Mens rea for theft (dishonesty + intention to permanently deprive) plus intention to use force or recklessness as to whether force would be used.

Verified case law

• DPP v Gomez[1993] AC 442

  Appropriation can occur even where the owner consented if obtained by deception.

Common defences

Deny theft (honest belief, no appropriation) · No force or threat of force · Deny identification · Duress (rare)

Actus reus

• Destroy or damage property belonging to another (or own property with intent/endangerment as per s.1(2)–(3)).
• Damage need not be permanent — temporary impairment can suffice.

Mens rea

• Intention or recklessness as to destroying or damaging property.
• Recklessness is subjective: did the defendant foresee the risk and take it anyway (R v G)?

Verified case law

• R v G[2004] UKHL 50

  Criminal damage recklessness requires subjective foresight of risk; Caldwell objective recklessness does not apply.

Common defences

Lawful excuse (s.5 — e.g. belief owner would consent) · Accident (no recklessness) · Deny causation · Self-defence of property (limited)

Actus reus

• Possession of a substance controlled under the Act.
• Possession = custody or control — need not be on person (e.g. in home, car).

Mens rea

• Knowledge of possession of some substance (not necessarily knowledge of exact drug or quantity in all circumstances).
• In vehicle/house cases, knowledge/control must be linked to the defendant — mere proximity may not suffice.

Verified case law

• Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner[1969] 2 AC 256

  Statutory possession in a vehicle can be strict as to contents in defined circumstances.

• R v Kennedy (No 2)[2007] UKHL 38

  Causation principles for supply where the deceased self-administers drugs.

Common defences

No knowledge of possession · Drugs belong to another / planted · Not in custody or control · Lawful prescription (specific substances)

Actus reus

• s.4: use towards another threatening, abusive or insulting words/behaviour with intent to cause fear of immediate unlawful violence, or so as to cause such fear.
• s.4A: use threatening/abusive/insulting words/behaviour with intent to cause harassment/alarm/distress, or so as to cause HAD.
• s.5: use threatening/abusive/insulting words/behaviour or disorderly behaviour within hearing/sight of person likely to be caused HAD (no intent required for the result).

Mens rea

• s.4: intent for first limb; recklessness as to causing fear for second limb.
• s.4A: intent or recklessness as to causing HAD.
• s.5: no mens rea as to causing HAD — but must intend/use the words/behaviour (or be reckless for disorderly behaviour).

Verified case law

• Brutus v Cozens[1973] AC 854

  “Insulting” under the Public Order Act 1936 (and successors) takes its ordinary meaning — whether reasonable persons would find the behaviour insulting.

Common defences

Reasonable excuse · No threatening/abusive/insulting character · Not within sight/hearing of likely victim (s.5) · Freedom of expression (Art 10) in context

Actus reus

• Dishonestly make a false representation (express or implied).
• Representation is false if untrue or misleading and the maker knows that or is reckless as to whether it is.
• Representation made to a device/system can suffice (s.2(5)).

Mens rea

• Dishonesty (Ivey test).
• Intent to make a gain for self/another or cause loss to another (or risk of loss).

Verified case law

• Ivey v Genting Casinos[2017] UKSC 67

  The Ghosh test is no longer law; dishonesty is assessed objectively after establishing the defendant's actual belief about the facts.

Common defences

Honest belief representation true · No intent to gain/cause loss · Not dishonest on Ivey test · Civil dispute not criminal fraud