FLK2 · Criminal Liability

Non-fatal offences against the person

SQE1 revision notes — the key rules, leading cases and common traps for this topic, in plain English and current to 2026.

CRL.04 — Non-fatal offences against the person

A hierarchy of five offences. Learn the actus reus (AR), mens rea (MR), and where each sits.

The offences

Assault (common assault) — summary, s.39 CJA 1988.

AR: causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence.
MR: intention or recklessness (Cunningham subjective recklessness) as to causing that apprehension.
Words alone can be assault (Ireland); words can also negate one (Tuberville v Savage). No touching needed.

Battery — summary, s.39 CJA 1988.

AR: infliction of unlawful force on another (any unwanted touching, however slight — Collins v Wilcock).
MR: intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force. Can be indirect (DPP v K — acid in hand dryer).

ABH — s.47 OAPA 1861, either-way.

AR: assault or battery that causes actual bodily harm (harm more than trivial; includes psychiatric injury — Chan-Fook; cutting hair — DPP v Smith).
MR: only the MR for the assault/battery. No need to foresee the ABH (Roberts, Savage). This is the classic trap.

s.20 GBH/wounding — OAPA 1861, either-way.

AR: unlawfully wound (break both layers of skin — JCC v Eisenhower) or inflict GBH (really serious harm — DPP v Smith; Saunders).
MR: intention or recklessness as to some harm — not the full extent (Mowatt, Parmenter).

s.18 GBH/wounding with intent — OAPA 1861, indictable only.

AR: as s.20.
MR: intention to cause GBH (recklessness will not do), or intention to resist/prevent lawful arrest. Specific-intent offence.

Common traps and distinctions

s.20 vs s.18 is the MR: s.18 needs intent to do GBH; recklessness can never satisfy s.18.
A wound needs broken skin — internal bleeding/bruising is not a wound (but may be GBH).
Foresight rule differs by offence: ABH and s.20 need no foresight of the level of harm; only s.18 demands intent.
Consent (general rule Brown): valid only for recognised exceptions — properly conducted sport, surgery, tattooing/piercing, horseplay (Jones), reasonable chastisement (now abolished in Scotland/Wales; limited in England). Consent is generally no defence to ABH or worse.
Transmission/transferred malice: MR transfers between victims, not between offence types.
A single act can be charged at the level the harm and MR support — pick the highest the facts prove.

Try a real SQE1 question

This question is taken from the bank. Answer it to see the worked reasoning and the tutor. You do not need to sign up to try it.

A woman is the treasurer of a small amateur football club. Members pay £20 each month in cash. Under the club rules she accepted on becoming treasurer, she must bank the subscriptions into the club's dedicated account within seven days. One month she receives £200 in subscriptions and spends the cash on her own gas bill that same day. She intends to replace the money from her wages before anyone notices, and pays an equivalent £200 into the club account two weeks later. Which statement best explains how section 5(3) of the Theft Act 1968 applies to the subscriptions when she pays the gas bill?

Practise at the real standard

Strong on this topic? SQE1 tests 137 of them, and 58% did not pass in July 2026. See where you stand across all of them.

Complete includes

✓An AI tutor on every question. The tutor already knows the correct answer
✓5 full timed mock papers, plus unlimited drilling — no daily cap
✓The whole 2,263-question bank, with worked answers and references, all 137 topics
✓Your weak-spot map: exactly where you’re losing marks

See what it costs →or try 25 questions free

One payment, nothing recurring. The 25-question diagnostic is free with no card.

Non-fatal offences against the person

CRL.04 — Non-fatal offences against the person

The offences

Common traps and distinctions

Try a real SQE1 question

More Criminal Liability topics