Under English law, a non fatal offence against the person is taken to mean an offence which is an attack directed at another person that does not result in the death of any person. Offences against the Person Act is based on whether the victim was injured and if injuries were sustained they are ranked according to its seriousness and the intention of the defendant.
An assault and battery are common law offences. There is no statutory definition for either assault or battery. For an assault, there is no touching involved only the fear of immediate unlawful force. In the case of Constanza the Court of Appeal held that letters could be an assault. For battery, there must be actual force. It is defined as infliction of unlawful personal harm accompanied by intention or subjective recklessness. There are often situations which both occur.
The actus reus for a section 20 offence is to cause GBH ‘serious’ or wound. In the case of Ahmed “deliberately” swinging his stick to hit Bob in the face, cutting his lip could mean Ahmed satisfies section 20 as the cut in Bobs lip is a break in the skin. The mens rea of a section 20 offence is to intend or recklessness as to some harm. As the act was deliberate, it could be argued that Ahmed intended to cause harm which possibly could change his offence to a section 18. Section 18 this is considered a much more serious offence than Section 20, as can be seen from the differences in the maximum punishments. Section 20 has a maximum of 5 years imprisonment whereas the maximum for a section 18 is life imprisonment. The mens rea for this offence is the specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist arrest. However, this would be left up to the jury to decide. Ahmed could not use defence of consent as such conduct is outside the rules of the game. The Court of Appeal said in Barnes that where an injury is caused during a match, then a criminal prosecution should be reserved for those situations where the conduct was sufficiently grave to be properly categorised as criminal.
In the case of Bob shouting at Ahmed “I’m going to sort you out” suggests a charge of assault. The words give context that Bob has intention to cause fear or at least subjective recklessness. Bob then goes onto shove Ahmed. This appears to fall into category of hostile touching as is minimal harm suggesting a charge of battery. Bob appears to be at least subjectively reckless confirming battery charge.
In the case of Craig twisting Ahmed’s ankle this is likely to satisfy a section 47. In miller it was said that actual bodily harm is ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim’. This level of harm is seen to be interfering with the health and comfort of Ahmed therefore confirming a charge of section 47. Craig’s anger and the context in which harm occurs suggests he intended the unlawful act but may not have foreseen any harm making section 47 the likely charge.