Talk:Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

message: The proposal is to merge the laws of two different jurisdictions. I do not know without research to what extent the Canadian law has departed from the original English model, but in principle, I oppose the proposal. Although the source is the same, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, it seems that Canada now uses a different term which suggests a new statute or body of case law modifying the original so that it matches Canadian requirements. I think it likely to be confusing to have two diverging explanations of more or less the same phrase on the same page. The better course is for someone with knowledge of Canadian law to expand the Canadian stub. David91 03:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself do not know much about Canadian Law (or English law, for that matter), though I have heard the term "Assault causing bodily harm" used in Canada. I agree with your decision not to merge the two articles, and will remove the merger tags in ten days unless somebody does not agree. Kareeser|Talk! 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we a law dictionary or an encyclopedia? Do we need separate Murder articles for each jurisdiction? Ewlyahoocom 05:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wiki is an encyclopaedia and, not that it is relevant to this particular merger proposal, "yes" we do need and have separate articles for murder because, otherwise, the murder page would be too big and cumbersome if every different facet of the topic by jurisdiction was included. Sorry, what was your vote for this merger proposal? David91 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a wiki is a website that anyone can edit. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 15:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets not get petty. This article should not merged. All of the above arguments for keeping the two articles seperate seem correct. I am currently studying law and, although the statute is important, the law is very much based on cases which are in english law (and i would assume not in canadian law, as far as i know). Wright123 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed it because i think everyone agrees. Feel free to put it back up/oppose the removal. Wright123 19:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: I may be wrong but i though the Mens Rea for ABH was there only needs to be enough intention to cause assault and/or battery. i.e. For ABH you only need to be specific intent or subjective recklessness to cause the victim to fear immediate unlawful force and/or to actually apply unlawful force. Wright123 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even looking up this article shows mens tea.  Hair-cutting or nail-cutting without permission is punishable by death.  When people are at law to maximize the degree of bodily harm or sexual or physical assault they can "get away with," they have subjected themselves to death under military jurisdiction, especially to the extent that they have organized themselves (technically as an armed and organized militia) via internet or other forums of discussion, armed with sharp instruments to carry out these crimes. tl;dr -- You don't get a trial for this.  People of good will simply kill you when they find out you are doing something like this, they get away with killing you, justifiably, and others thank God you are dead. When I think about it, I have to throw in the date-rape drugs and the beverage-spiking to the same category of punishable-by-death-without-trial, because when it comes to military jurisdiction, chemicals are weapons, too. 24.237.158.15 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Mens Rea

message: "There is a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment (or 7 years if it is racially motivated)."
Nothing really to do with how the article was put together, but who would agree that just because a crime is "racially motivated" it shouldn't mean that they get a longer sentence? What if it was against someone because they were a retard? or if they were fat?
 
The difference is history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.237.193 (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Imprisonment

message: This page has been moved because 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm' is the correct name of this offence and the term 'actual bodily harm' is used independently of this offence, for example in relation to consent and also in an Australian offence, inflicting actual bodily harm, and also in Domestic violence legislation. James500 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: Note to self: "Assault occasioning actual bodily harm" described in more or less those terms precisely, is still an offence in the Australian Capital Terriotory (Crimes Act 1900, s.24)  and New South Wales (Crimes Act 1900 (No.40), s.59); and the offence in South Australia was under section 40 of the 1935 Act ; add this information to the article later.James500 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: (Wilfully causing) actual bodily harm is an offence in Samoa under s.80 of the Crimes Ordinance 1961 . There are others like this. It will definately be necessary to have a seperate article for actual bodily harm. James500 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: I have moved the following material from the article assault so that it can be incorporated into this article.James500 (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[assault]] 

message: I have cut the following from the section on the racially/religiously aggravated offence. I can't find any evidence that this is true. I think it is probably due to someone's misunderstanding of chapter 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (i.e. mistakenly thinking that this is a "serious offence" for the purposes of that chapter and not just a "specified offence").James500 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut 

message: I have doubts about the following passage in the article:
"This is usually taken to mean the same as "causing" i.e. it includes both acts and omissions."
No authority is cited in support of this. Archbold, 1999, para 19-166 says that psychic assault cannot be committed by "a mere omission to act" and cites a number of cases that it says supports this. The passage from Fagan v MPC in the article (not cited by Archbold) seems to say the same thing. The passage from R v Williams says battery is "an act" by which the defendant does this, that and the other. So I am going to remove the words "i.e. it includes both acts and omissions" because I am not sure if that is correct.James500 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Occasioning

message: I do not think the following passage is correct:
"In R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, at a time when the defendant knew that he was suffering from a venereal disease, he had sexual intercourse and communicated the disease to his wife. The court was reluctant to consider this an injury within the meaning of the Act."
Having looked at the report of this case in "The Law Reports" by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting, I cannot find anything that appears to be an assertion that Mrs Clarence did not in fact suffer bodily harm. As far as I can see, the judges who were in favour of quashing the conviction seem to have been concerned with the meaning of the words "inflict" and "assault" in sections 20 and 47 respectively. Some of them appear to say expressly that the wife had suffered grievous bodily harm. The judgement is lengthy (a little over 43 pages) and it is possible that I have missed something. But in the absence of some further source, such as a textbook or something published in one of the journals, I think I am going to have to remove this assertion altogether. James500 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  R v Clarence 

message: I have cut the following passage from the introduction. There is no source. I am not certain that the word "substantial" has exactly the same meaning as "more than merely transient or trifling" etc. I think that the name of this offence is probably self-explanatory. I am not certain that offences under this section typically require medical treatment either.James500 (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut 

message: While acknowledging that UK law on assault tends to influence many other common-law jurisdictions, this section is way too long. It's a long list of sentences quoted from judgements, without any explanation or context. What's needed is an explanation of the present state of practice, and an explanation of how we got here.
IANAL! But my understanding is that if I wave my clenched fist at you, that is assault; if I wave it, and then punch you hard enough to (say) break your lip, that is assault and battery, now known as "assault occasioning actual bodily harm" (ABH); and if you end up in traction in hospital, that is "assault occasioning grievous bodily harm" (GBH). Clearly, there are judgements to be made, so case-law is interesting and relevant; but Wikipedia readers are not, in general, competent to evaluate case-law. It needs to be explained by a Secondary source.
MrDemeanour (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom