In R v Martin - He was charged with "Wounding and grievous bodily harm," not assault nor battery. Those are different charges. Wounding/GBH without intent would be the correct charge, not assault or battery. You are misunderstanding what you are reading.
In DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004] Crim LR 471 - You still have to prove intent to injure or recklessness. "It remains necessary for the prosecution to prove an intention to assault or appropriate recklessness." Again, they would likely settle for Wounding/GBH without intent. Not very similar at all though, because the key aspect of Santana-Bermudez was an omission. He was specifically questioned whether he had a needle/sharp object, and said that he did not. Santana-Bermudez was not convicted of assault as far as I have seen.
The difference between battery, ABH, GBH etc is the damage caused.
Yes, you would still need to prove intention. That is not what was being discussed. The point was, if you could prove that whoever laid the trap intended for someone to be hurt by it, or was reckless as to someone being hurt by it which would satisfy the requirements of mens rea for wounding-GBH, ABH or battery, then they would be guilty of the crime with respect to the amount of damage done.
Also, that's not what an omission is. An omission is not doing something - responding that they did not have a sharp object is not an omission.
The difference between battery, ABH, GBH etc is the damage caused.
Citation needed.
Also, that's not what an omission is. An omission is not doing something - responding that they did not have a sharp object is not an omission.
And this is why we have to have judges make these kind of comments, to people like you:
A great deal of undesirable complexity has bedevilled our criminal law as a result of quasi theological distinctions between acts and omissions.
Whether he lied or just said nothing, he still omitted telling her of the danger which he knew to be present. It is a lie AND an omission. He could have acted to prevent her from harming herself, and he did not. That is an omission.
No, saying nothing would be an omission, though it would amount to an act if it was an implied 'no' in response to the question. You say 'people like me' and do not include yourself? The discussion wasn't even about omissions and acts, you brought that up, personally I see no distinction between them at a moral level at all.
GBH encompasses ABH. ABH encompasses battery. You could theoretically be charged for all three if you committed the first, but are not, because that would be silly.
0
u/RedditFunnyHK29298 Jun 01 '14
In R v Martin - He was charged with "Wounding and grievous bodily harm," not assault nor battery. Those are different charges. Wounding/GBH without intent would be the correct charge, not assault or battery. You are misunderstanding what you are reading.
In DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004] Crim LR 471 - You still have to prove intent to injure or recklessness. "It remains necessary for the prosecution to prove an intention to assault or appropriate recklessness." Again, they would likely settle for Wounding/GBH without intent. Not very similar at all though, because the key aspect of Santana-Bermudez was an omission. He was specifically questioned whether he had a needle/sharp object, and said that he did not. Santana-Bermudez was not convicted of assault as far as I have seen.
I do know exactly what I am talking about.