Mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 OAPA 1861; R v Savage)
At an office party in Bristol, Hannah Price argues with her colleague Dev Mistry. Intending only to push him away from her, she shoves him hard in the chest. Dev stumbles backwards, falls against a table and suffers a cut to his head that needs stitches, which amounts to actual bodily harm. Hannah is charged under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. She says, and the jury accept, that she neither intended nor foresaw that Dev would suffer any injury.
Which of the following best describes Hannah's liability under s.47?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: She is guilty, because she intentionally applied unlawful force to Dev, which caused actual bodily harm; no intention or foresight of harm is needed.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Section 47 requires only the mens rea for the assault or battery; the prosecution need not prove intention or recklessness as to the actual bodily harm caused.
Mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 OAPA 1861; R v Savage)
Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 requires an assault (which includes a battery) that occasions actual bodily harm. In R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699 the House of Lords held that the verdict may be returned on proof of an assault together with proof that actual bodily harm was occasioned by it. The prosecution need not prove that the defendant intended to cause some actual bodily harm or was reckless as to whether such harm would be caused. The mens rea is simply that of the assault or battery: intention or subjective recklessness as to applying unlawful force (or causing apprehension of it). 'Occasioning' raises only a question of causation. Hannah intentionally shoved Dev, which is a battery, and the shove caused the cut. Her lack of foresight of injury is no answer.
Why A is wrong: Savage held that no intention or recklessness as to actual bodily harm need be proved.
Why C is wrong: Foresight of some harm is the mens rea for s.20 (R v Mowatt), not s.47.
Why D is wrong: Section 47 requires only the mens rea of the assault or battery; it is not a specific intent offence.
Why E is wrong: In this context 'assault' includes battery, so an intentional push that causes harm is enough.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Mens rea of 'maliciously' inflicting grievous bodily harm (s.20 OAPA 1861; R v Mowatt)
Which of the following best states the mens rea the prosecution must prove under s.20?
Consent to actual bodily harm for sexual gratification (Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s.71)
Which of the following best describes whether Sam's consent prevents Elliot being guilty of the s.47 offence?
Burglary where the intent to steal is formed after entry (Theft Act 1968 s.9(1)(b))
Which of the following best describes Marcus's liability for burglary?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.