Legal Advice Report: Peter Matthews, Assault Causing Bodily Harm Case

This report presents a letter of legal advice concerning Peter Matthews, who is accused of assault causing bodily harm. The advice focuses on the importance of the police providing relevant information, including details of the arrest, investigation reports, and evidence supporting the charges. The report analyzes the substantive law, specifically Section 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, and the elements of Actus Reus and Mens Rea. It explores potential defenses such as self-defense and unintentional accident, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The letter also provides guidance on police interviews, the significance of caution, and exercising rights under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It advises on pre-charge bail and differentiates between types of assault and potential punishments. The report concludes by addressing the client's concerns and emphasizing the importance of following the legal advice provided.

Law and Legal
Practice

Peter Matthews
Block A, 120- Bakers Street
London, W1U 6TU
Subject: Letter of advice to crime in respect of an alleged crime
Dear,
This letter concerns to my client Peter Matthews who seeks legal advice for the offense
to which he is charged with. According to the facts, Peter is alleged of assaulting a person by
causing bodily harm. In all my honesty, let me impart to you of all the moves I think you should
consider for the case in hand.
The most important and the initial request which I want to put forward as a legal advisor
of my client is to provide me with the related information and the documents relating to the
detention of my client Peter Matthews from respective custody of the police officer. Also if any
other offence is accompanied as a circumstance of such a detention, I request to provide me
with the information and details for the same. I also want to know whether investigation
conducted by the police officer was properly recorded or not and also whether it was in
accordance to the provisions of law or not. I also request to let me know of the place details
where such an incident took place. Also provide me with the details of the police officers who
were present at the crime spot and also those who were part of the case. I also request disclosure
of the investigation report by the custody officer to be verified of the offence along with all the
annexures. I also request to produce any other evidence supporting detention or charges alleged
on my client so to seek or apply for bail. Also I want to know whether all the information by the
police officers were recorded in accordance to the provisions given under the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act, 1984.
Analysing facts, my client Peter is accused of an Assault which led to the bodily harm to
a person. Therefore the substantive law in the committed criminal offence is “Assault Causing
Actual Bodily Harm” which is described in The Offence Against the Persons Act, 1861 under
Section 47 (Schmalleger and Hall, 2017). According to the act, battery and assault cannot be
charged at the same time upon same person. But the element of both the assault and battery are
present in common assault. An assault basically is an act under the law which is caused by a
person who have an intention to cause bodily harm. There are mainly two elements under the

act of the offences alleged. They are Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Actus Reus is when a person is
guilty of an act of criminal nature which includes causing physical harm, whereas, Mens Rea
states the guilt of a mind i.e. an intention of criminal nature a person had while committing such
an offence (Herring, 2020). In my opinion, the act committed by Peter was done in his self
defence from the attack done upon him by the plaintiff. At the time of defending, my client
peter could not decide the power of the force which he was using to safe himself. It is on the
prosecution to decide and prove guilt of peter. It is on the prosecution to prove firstly that the
act of peter caused fear in another person, secondly the accused was touched without his
consent, thirdly the accused committed the act intentionally to cause harm or injury, fourthly the
accused do not have any excuse for his actions which is lawful and lastly the act of accused
caused injury or physical harm to other person.
Mens Rea is important element of crime. As peter did not commit any crime
intentionally, Mens Rea requires proof which is not yet submitted by plaintiff. Peter do not have
any intention of such an act and also he was not reckless of the consequences of his actions. The
act was a sudden reaction which he performed for his self defence. According to the law, a
person cannot be guilty of an act done if his mind was not guilty of the same. For any act to be
crime, two elements must be present i.e. Actus Reus and Mens Rea. None of the two elements
were proved by the police officers against the accused. The officers are needed to prove that the
accuse intentionally caused injury and harm to the body of other.
The law of crimes have provided with several defences. The first is the defence of
Insanity. In this it is argued that the defendant was not in a state of mind where he can
reasonable think about his actions (Clement, 2018). The second defence is of Intoxication. In
this defence, defendant was intoxicated and did not understand his actions. Third defence is of
mistake of law. This defence made defendant believe that his actions were lawful. Fourth
defence is of Self Defence. In this, it is argued that the actions of defendant was to defend
himself. Fifth is the defence of duress where it was argued that the act was as he was forced by
some other person. Sixth is the defence of consent in which it can be argued that the plaintiff
gave consent to the defendant of such an act. Seventh defence is of Entrapment where the
involvement of government is there where it force to perform such an act (Child, Child and
Ormerod, 2017). In my opinion, peter can seek for the defence of self defence and unintentional
accident. It is to be proved that the act of the Peter was to defend himself. The another defence

is of unintentional accident where it is to be proved that the act done by peter was unintentional
accident and he do not have any intention to cause bodily harm to other. Therefore this all will
not amount to assault considering the elements of crime. Peter did not have an intention to
commit assault, therefore there was an omission of guilty mind.
Caution can generally be seen at a very beginning stage where the questions are asked to
the accused by the police office where they suspect the commitment of crime done by accused.
The purpose is very clear of the caution even if an individual posses right to remain silent, they
should always speak up for themselves and remaining silent can take the case against them by
the prosecution if an explanation is not made by the accused. The statement made by the
accused is also considered and also accused is given with opportunity of being heard by the
prosecution and present evidences to prove his innocence against the allegations made.
Therefore it is required that the interview under caution is to be conducted by the police officer
as per The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 under the Code C (Wlasow, Martynova and
Shashkova, 2018). If in the failure of the caution by the police officer while interviewing a
person and continue to suspect them then the evidence of the same is not admissible. A true and
accurate interview is to be recorded and then presented. Therefore it is advisable by me that
peter consider all the necessity and the relevance of caution which is discussed above.
I would also like to give an advice to my client related to his participation and
involvement in the interview conducted by police, to exercise under code C all the human
rights, which is the code of practice relating to the detention, questioning and also the treatment
by the police officer. Rights related to Redressal and protection must be made aware to the
Peter. He shall appoint a legal solicitor in whose presence he is to be interview as this is his
legal right. Peter must see to it that the recording of the interview is done in accordance to the
procedure given by the law. Also he may ask for any necessary assistance to be provided by the
officers as it is his right. It is the right of peter to ask for the true reason for his detention and
also he is not obliged to answer all the questions of the officer. It is further advised to peter that
he shall remain silent and say nothing on the random questions fired upon him. He is also
advised to continuously ask for the presence of lawyer at the time of interview.
The police can grant a Pre charge bail under Part 4 in England and Wales of the act of
PACE i.e. The Police and Criminal and Evidence Act, 1984. According to this act, peter can be
released on bail until the investigation by the police is complete. The bail to the accused can be

granted by the police authorities upon believing the fact that he will not be committing any
further offence if released from detention. The bail can be with or without any condition, it
depends on the authority granting release to an accuse. Assault can also be differentiated on the
basis of the nature of the injury or harm caused. If any person is convicted for the assault
occasioning actual bodily harm is held liable and is punished with a term imprisonment which
can be exceeded to 5 years (Hough, 2019). On the other hand, summary conviction is
punishable with an imprisonment which may be for a term but can be exceeded to seven years
or with fine or with both.
Assault that amounts to bodily harm is mostly dealt by the local courts who can provide
with punishment that is not exceeding two years. According to an act of 1861 of the offences
against the person under section 47, it is stated that if any individual has committed an offense
of assault and had caused harm to the body of other person then such a person is punishable for
the imprisonment of a term which may be exceeded to 5 years. In case if the injury or harm
caused is falling in the category of aggravated offence then the imprisonment is for a term and
can be exceeded to 7 years. The punishment is decided in accordance to the seriousness of the
harm or injury caused by an accused. The court while making decision determine the
seriousness of such an injury or harm, violence degree or the way in which the force was
applied. It is also seen by the court whether an accuse has intentionally assaulted a person or it
was unintentional. The court also have powers to not punish the accuse of imprisonment or fine.
The court may also order accuse to inherit good behaviour or detain himself at home to to other
place, etc. which the court may think fit and in the best interest of the accused (Enescu and
Scheffer, 2017). In case the prosecution fails to prove assault then the court may penalise accuse
with bond of good behaviour for certain duration.
There are many questions which come in the mind of a person who is to be co0nvicted
of some criminal offence even if the act done by him was intentional or unintentional. The
questions which generally come in the mind may be: “will I be going to jail?”, “will I be
punished for the crime I did not commit?”, “what statements will I make during an interview
conducted by police officers”, etc. All these questions badly impact soul and mind of a person.
If the client is unknown of the laws and the rights which are provided to him by the law, they
may ask about them and also they can learn how to exercise those rights. The client is always
worried about the punishment he may get when court passes order. If the imprisonment is of log

duration, the client can also ask for reducing the term. There are many questions and all of them
are to be answered to the client in a systematic and précised manner.
Follow all the advices provided in the letter by me. Also if any other help or assistance
is needed, revert back to me and feel free to contact.
Sincerely,
ABC
Legal advisor

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Child, J.J., Child, J. and Ormerod, D., 2017. Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Essentials of
Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Clement, R., 2018. CONSENT TO BODY MODIFICATION IN CRIMINAL LAW. The
Cambridge Law Journal. 77(3). pp.451-454.
Enescu, R. and Scheffer, T., 2017. Sentencing Hearings in English Crown Courts: Moralization
in Criminal Trials. Revista Forumul Judecatorilor, p.112.
Herring, J., 2020. Criminal Law Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide. Oxford University
Press.
Hough, R.M., 2019. Criminal Investigations Today: The Essentials. SAGE Publications.
Schmalleger, F. and Hall, D.E., 2017. Criminal law today. Pearson.
Wlasow, K.A., Martynova, N.A. and Shashkova, V.N., 2018. The Specificities of the Legal
Term System (as Exemplified by the Criminal Law Term System). Вопросы
трансформации образования, 1, pp.139-152.