TUTORIAL 6: NON-FATAL OFFENCES

Key cases:
Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374
R v Ireland (HL)(1997) 4 All ER 225
DPP v. Savage; Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699
Questions
1. Explain and evaluate the case of Ireland. Why is it important in the context of the offence of
common assault?

In R v Ireland [1997] 4 All ER 225, the House of Lords held that repeated silent telephone calls could
amount to common assault where they caused the victims to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
The Court further ruled that psychiatric injury, such as clinical depression, may constitute actual bodily
harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This case is important because it
broadened the scope of assault to include not only physical gestures but also silence and words,
provided they result in apprehension of immediate harm. Additionally, it recognised psychiatric harm as
sufficient for actual bodily harm, making the law more responsive to modern forms of harassment and
abuse.

[Link] different is the law on assault and criminal force in Malaysia from the law of common
assault and battery in England.

The Malaysian Penal Code separates assault (section 351) and criminal force (section 350), whereas
English law refers to common assault and battery. Under English law, assault is the act of causing
another to apprehend immediate unlawful force, and battery is the actual application of that force.
Similarly, section 351 of the Malaysian Penal Code defines assault as any gesture or preparation
intended to cause apprehension of imminent criminal force, while criminal force under section 350
involves the intentional application of force without consent, with the intent to cause injury, fear, or
annoyance. However, Malaysian law does not recognise mere words as constituting assault, unlike
English law post-Ireland. English law also allows recklessness as sufficient mens rea, while Malaysian law
requires intention or knowledge. Thus, both systems reflect similar principles but differ in structure,
terminology, and scope.

[Link] sent Frances many e-mails, text messages and letters ( the person knowing where you live) ,
telling her that she is beautiful.
However, she was frightened by his actions. Has Ewan committed the actus reus for assault?
Does it matter that Ewan never intended to cause any harm on Frances?

Ewan may have committed the actus reus for assault under English law if his conduct caused Frances to
apprehend immediate unlawful force. Although his messages were complimentary, the repetitive and
intrusive nature could be interpreted as harassment, especially if Frances feared he might confront her in
person. Under R v Ireland, even silent calls or repeated messages could suffice if they cause
psychological fear of imminent harm. However, under Malaysian law, mere words alone do not amount to
assault unless accompanied by gestures or acts, and the threat must imply the immediate use of
criminal force. Therefore, in Malaysia, Ewan’s behaviour might not fulfil the actus reus for assault unless
it escalates further.

Ewan can satisfied the actus reus part. Because he know the address of her

Under English law, intent or recklessness is sufficient for the mens rea of assault. So even if Ewan did not
intend harm, he could still be liable if he was reckless as to whether his conduct would cause Frances to
apprehend immediate violence (G and R) there is a risk know of a risk, choosing to do it unreasonable
going to take the risk. Risk the victim will suffer apprehension. Under Malaysian law (section 351), the
mens rea requires that the person intended or knew it was likely that their gestures or preparations
would cause such apprehension (annoyance). Therefore, if Ewan knew or should have known that his
conduct would alarm Frances, he could still satisfy the mental element, even without malicious intent.
So, yes, lack of intent to harm does not necessarily absolve him in either jurisdiction.

[Link] was in a Justin Bieber concert when Frank elbowed her while dancing. Can Ellen
complain that Frank committed battery/criminal force on her? What if Frank put his hands
around Ellen even though Frances told him off?

In crowded settings such as concerts, minor physical contact is generally considered impliedly consented
to under both English and Malaysian law. Therefore, Frank accidentally elbowing Ellen while dancing
would likely not amount to battery or criminal force. However, if Frank placed his hands on Ellen after
being told not to, it could constitute battery under English law, or criminal force under Malaysian law
(section 350), as it would be intentional and without consent, likely causing fear or annoyance. Consent
is negated when someone explicitly withdraws it, and further touching becomes unlawful. Collins v
Willcock, put yourself in.a crowded people
[Link] what “actual bodily harm” is. Why is it that the offence under section 47 is
sometimes referred to as an offence of “half mens-rea”?

Actual bodily harm (ABH) under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 refers to any
injury that is more than trivial but not serious, including bruises, scratches, and recognised psychiatric
conditions. The offence is often described as involving “half mens rea” because it only requires the
defendant to have the mens rea for assault or battery (i.e. intent or recklessness to cause unlawful
force), not for the actual harm that results. This means that a person can be convicted under section 47
even if they did not intend or foresee the actual bodily harm caused.

[Link] and evaluate the case of Savage; Parmenter. What is the importance of this case in
relation to non-fatal offences?

In DPP v Savage; Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699, the House of Lords clarified that for an offence under
section 47, it is sufficient that the defendant had the mens rea for assault or battery, even if they did not
intend or foresee the actual harm caused. Savage threw beer intending only to humiliate, but the glass
broke and cut the victim. Parmenter caused injury to a baby while handling it roughly, though he didn’t
foresee harm. The case confirmed that foresight or intention of the resulting ABH is not required for
liability under section 47, reinforcing the idea of “half mens rea” and maintaining a lower threshold for
this offence.

[Link] have the courts interpreted “wound”, “grievous bodily harm” and “maliciously”? What
is the “Mowatt gloss”?

A “wound” requires a break in both layers of the skin. “Grievous bodily harm” (GBH) means serious harm
and includes serious psychiatric injury. The term “maliciously”, interpreted in R v Mowatt [1968], does
not require an intention to cause GBH but only that the defendant foresaw that some harm might result.
This is known as the “Mowatt gloss”, where for offences under sections 20 and 47 OAPA 1861, the
defendant only needs to foresee some physical harm—not necessarily serious or grievous harm. This
interpretation lowers the mens rea threshold for GBH-related offences.

[Link] have the Penal Code defined “hurt” and “grievous hurt”?

Under Malaysian law, section 319 defines “hurt” as causing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to a person.
Section 320 defines “grievous hurt” and lists eight specific types of injuries, including emasculation,
permanent loss of sight or hearing, disfigurement of the face, fracture, and injuries that endanger life or
cause prolonged pain or inability to follow ordinary pursuits for ten days. These definitions are more
detailed than those in English law and provide clearer statutory guidance as to what amounts to grievous
harm in Malaysia.

[Link] what extent can people consent to harm being inflicted upon them? Discuss in relation to
English law and Malaysian law.

In English law, consent can be a defence to non-fatal offences in limited circumstances. Generally, a
person cannot consent to actual bodily harm or greater, as seen in R v Brown [1993], unless it falls within
recognised exceptions such as properly conducted sports, medical procedures, or tattooing. Public policy
limits consent to prevent people from inflicting harm without justification, even if it’s consensual. In
Malaysian law, sections 87 to 89 of the Penal Code permit consent as a defence when the act is not
intended or known to likely cause death or grievous hurt, and the consent is given by a person above 18.
Section 90 invalidates consent given under fear, misconception, by intoxicated or mentally unsound
persons, or by children under 12. Therefore, both jurisdictions recognise consent in limited scenarios but
place strong restrictions when serious harm is involved, especially if not in the public interest.

[Link] was involved in a bar fight with James as they agreed to sort things out that way. It left
James bleeding badly.
George, a policeman arrived at the bar and shouted at Peter to stop. Seeing George coming
towards him with a pair of handcuffs, Peter took a small glass and threw it at George. It
missed but the glass hit Rachel, causing her severe head injuries as she had a thin skull.
What offences have Peter potentially committed?

Accused-Peter- severe head injuries ( GBH)

Victim- James

Causation- substantive and operating

Peter potentially committed multiple offences. First, his fight with James may constitute assault
occasioning actual bodily harm or even grievous bodily harm, depending on the injury. Consent is
unlikely to be a defence, as fights like this are generally unlawful (AG’s Ref No. 6 of 1980).
Throwing a glass at George could amount to attempted assault of a public servant (section 353
Penal Code in Malaysia). Even though the glass missed George, it struck Rachel, causing serious
injury. This engages the principle of transferred malice, making Peter liable for the actual harm
caused to Rachel. Given the severity of her injury (exacerbated by her thin skull), Peter could be
liable for voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 322, read with the thin skull rule that the
defendant must take the victim as they find them. If the act was intentional or done with
knowledge that such harm could occur, it may attract heavier punishment.

James- s20

George- assault