Sunita and Barbara share a flat. One-night Sunita finds Barbara kissing her boyfriend, Yuri.

Sunita picks up a paperweight, raises it in the air and shouts at Barbara, “I’m going to kill
you, you whore!” She then throws the paperweight at Barbara who ducks to avoid being
hit. Barbara hits her head on a cupboard door, cutting her forehead. Yuri is so angry that
he pushes Sunita who falls backwards over a stool onto the floor and is knocked
unconscious for a few seconds. When Sunita recovers consciousness, she is still dizzy and
stumbles towards Barbara, knocking her onto the floor. Barbara suffers a fractured arm.
Later that evening, when Sunita is sleeping, Barbara takes a pair of scissors and cuts off
Sunita’s hair. Discuss the potential criminal liability of Sunita, Yuri and Barbara for the
above incidents.

We understand that sunita( the “S”), barbara(the”B”), Yuri( the”Y”), have entered into some
criminal offences. S hits B with paper weight, and B ducks down and hits herself on the
cupboard door, and cuts her forehead. Further we understand that Y pushed S because of
which S falls down on the floor and becomes unconscious. Then, B cuts S’s hair. In the essay
below, we will separately define the criminal offences in each case.

S and B:
B got hit and cuts her forehead, this is a serious offence hence we can charge S liable under
section 18 of OAPA. Our first issue is to prove the AR for section 18. AR is for section 18 is
defined as “Causing wounding or grievous bodily harm( “GBH”).” In our case, it can be seen
that there’s no one act and one harm and since the offence is serious because of cutting of
B’s forehead we will first prove the factual causation. Factual causation is Where the “but
for” test applies, where it needs to be proven that “but for the defendants acts or omission,
the harm would not have occurred. The application of this was seen in the case of (White),
where a son tried to poison the mother however she died of a heart attack. The courts
found that the son couldn’t be the factual cause of the mother’s death. In the case of
Mitchell it was held that if the harm is direct or indirect, the defendant will still be the
factual cause of the harm. In our case, it is clear that there are two acts and one harm,
hence we will apply the rules of breaking chain and see if the causation is met or not.
According to the case of Roberts, the chain will only be broken if the victims response is too
stupid. And, according to the case of William and Davis, the chain will break if the victims act
was not reasonably foreseeable. In our case, B’s act was foreseeable and was not stupid
because anyone in the place of B would have done the same because of the comments S
passed, “I’m going to kill you, you whore.” The chain will not be broken. After proving the
AR, the we will prove the MR. The MR for section 18 is malafide direct intent to cause the
wound or grievous bodily harm( Purcell case), or an intention to prevent a lawful arrest. In
our case, it is clear that S wanted to cause GBH, therefore the MR will be met. Sunita will be
held liable under section 18 of OAPA.

Y and S:
It can be seen that Y pushed S out of anger because of which S was knocked down, and we
have to identify under which section will Y be held liable.
As, being unconscious is not a serious harm or injury Y will be liable under section 47 of
OAPA and the harm will be considered as actual bodily harm( ABH). ABH was defined in the
case of Donovan, as “more transient than trifling.” Any sort of discomfort cause to another
person which is less serious will qualify as ABH. In the case of Morris, It was stated that less
serious psychiatric injury will also be ABH. First, we need to determine whether Y has
committed either assault or battery. The AR for assault is apprehension of immediate and
lawful violence, for this apprehension does not need fear but it needs to expect. Immediate
doesn’t mean instantly it means imminent in the near future. Assault be through words,
actions, or silence. However, words can also negate assault. As seen in the case of R v.
Wilson, the words, “get out the knives” Amounted to assault. The MR is for assault is
intention or recklessness.( Venna case) The AR for battery is infliction of unlawful violence.
Such violence can be direct or indirect as seen in the case of DPP v. K, in which the
defendant put acid in victim’s hairdryer and v was injured because of it, although the
violence was indirect , it was still liable.
Battery is defined as any unconsented hostile touching which includes slaps, punches,
unconsented kisses, poking, etc. In our case, we can say that the harm s suffered from was a
direct harm and was not a serious harm, so it can be considered as ABH. Moreover, Y has
committed battery as Y pushed S and any unwanted touch without consent is referred as
battery. Further, it is also clear that the battery i.e pushing has caused ABH. Moreover, the
MR also meets battery because Y pushed S out of anger which clearly shows the
recklessness of Y and also shows the intention of Y. Now, after proving the AR and the MR,
we need to prove the chain of causation, since there is single act of the D, leading to the
harm, factual and legal causation will be met thereby proving the AR. Thus, Y is held liable
under section 47 of section of OAPA.

S to B:
We see that after S gained consciousness, She mistakenly trips over B, and causes fracture
in B’s arm. Now our issue is to determine under which section will S be held liable. The
suitable charge for S will be under section 47 since the harm which was done is not serious
and qualifies as ABH. Now, we need to determine whether S has committed assault or
battery. It is clear that S has committed battery since there was an unconsented push.
Further, we need to prove the AR for battery, for which we can say that even though the
harm was indirect, the AR will still be met. MR, i don’t know.

B to S:
We understand that S was sleeping and B cut S’s hair. B will be held liable under the section
47 of OAPA act as there was no consent by S, and the case DPP v. K clearly tells us that the
cutting hair without consent is clearly unlawful. (write hence will be liable)