← Back to blog

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person for SQE1

Part of our SQE1 Criminal Law guide → View the full SQE1 Criminal Law guide

25 Apr 2026

Non-fatal offences against the person form a hierarchy of charges that SQE1 tests regularly. You need to know the elements of each offence and how to distinguish between them.

Criminal Law > Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

What Are Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person?

Candidates frequently lose marks on SQE1 by confusing section 20 (foresight of some harm) with section 18 (specific intent to cause GBH) — a single-word difference in the facts (intended versus foresaw) determines which charge succeeds, and SQE1 questions may test this distinction across multiple scenarios. These are criminal offences involving the application or threat of unlawful force that does not result in the victim's death. They range from common assault (the least serious) through to wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent (the most serious). The principal statutory source is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861), supplemented by common law for assault and battery.

The offences form a 'ladder' of seriousness, and SQE1 expects you to match the correct charge to the facts.

Understanding the relationship with criminal defences is essential for answering SQE1 questions on this topic.

Key Principles for SQE1

  • Assault (common law): Causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. Mens rea: intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend such violence. No physical contact is required.

  • Battery (common law): The application of unlawful force to another person. Mens rea: intention or recklessness as to the application of unlawful force. Even the slightest touching can suffice.

  • Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) — s.47 OAPA 1861: An assault or battery that causes actual bodily harm. ABH means 'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim' — it need not be permanent but must be more than trivial. Includes psychiatric harm. Mens rea: intention or recklessness as to the assault or battery — no need to prove foresight of the harm itself. For a full understanding of how this fits within the broader framework of Criminal Law, see the complete guide.

  • Malicious wounding / inflicting GBH — s.20 OAPA 1861: Unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm. GBH means 'really serious harm'. A wound requires a break in the continuity of both layers of the skin. Mens rea: intention or recklessness as to some physical harm (not necessarily GBH) — 'maliciously' means foresight of some harm.

  • Wounding / causing GBH with intent — s.18 OAPA 1861: Unlawfully and maliciously wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause GBH or with intent to resist lawful apprehension. Mens rea: specific intent to cause GBH (or to resist arrest). This is the most serious non-fatal offence and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

  • Consent: Valid consent may provide a defence to assault and battery, and in limited circumstances to ABH (e.g., properly conducted sport, surgery, tattooing). Consent is generally not a defence to offences causing ABH or above unless a recognised exception applies.

Exam tip

When you see a serious injury (broken bone, deep cut, significant bleeding), ask: Does this amount to GBH? If yes, the question turns on whether the defendant intended to cause GBH (s.18) or merely foresaw some harm (s.20). The mens rea difference is narrow but crucial.

How This Appears in SQE1 Questions

SQE1 questions describe injuries and ask you to select the correct charge. This is a common SQE1 pitfall: distinguishing between statutory charges based on a single detail of the defendant's mental state. The critical distinction is between s.20 and s.18 — both require GBH or a wound, but s.18 requires specific intent to cause GBH, while s.20 requires only foresight of some harm.

Another common trap is applying the wrong mens rea to ABH (s.47) — you only need to prove the mens rea for the underlying assault or battery, not foresight of the harm.

Common Mistakes Students Make

  • Confusing s.20 (foresight of some harm) with s.18 (specific intent to cause GBH) — this is the most important distinction in the hierarchy
  • Requiring foresight of ABH for a s.47 charge — the mens rea is for the assault or battery only, not for the resulting harm
  • Treating a wound as requiring serious injury — a wound is simply a break in both layers of the skin, which can be relatively minor
  • Forgetting that assault is the apprehension of force (no contact needed) while battery is the actual application of force

Quick Summary

  • Assault: apprehension of force, no contact.
  • Battery: application of force.
  • ABH: minor injuries, assault/battery mens rea. s.20: wounding/GBH, foresight of some harm. s.18: wounding/GBH, intent to cause GBH.
  • The s.20/s.18 distinction is crucial.

Want to test this now? Try a few SQE1-style questions below before moving on.

Test Yourself

Test yourself

Quick check questions based on this article.

Question 1

Scenario

A man and his former business partner are attending the same trade conference. The two have not spoken for several months following a dispute over unpaid invoices. During a coffee break, the former partner approaches the man and makes a sarcastic comment about the man's financial difficulties. The man ignores the comment and walks away. Later that afternoon, the former partner approaches the man again in the exhibition hall and, in front of several colleagues, accuses him of being dishonest. The man loses his temper and pushes the former partner forcefully in the chest. The former partner stumbles backwards, falls over a display stand, and hits his head on the concrete floor. He suffers a concussion and a small laceration to the back of his head that requires three stitches. The former partner is taken to hospital by ambulance. He is kept in overnight for observation and discharged the following morning. The man tells security staff that he only intended to push the former partner away and did not mean to cause any real harm. A witness confirms that the push was a single shove with both hands.

What is the most serious offence against the person the man is likely to be charged with?

Question 2

Scenario

A woman works as a carer in a residential care home for elderly residents. She is responsible for administering medication to the residents under a strict protocol. One evening, the woman is feeling tired after a double shift and accidentally gives a resident twice the prescribed dose of a blood-thinning medication. The resident, an 82-year-old man, suffers a serious internal bleed as a result of the overdose. He is transferred to hospital and undergoes emergency surgery. The resident survives but requires a further three weeks of hospitalisation and suffers a permanent reduction in his mobility. A medical expert states that the overdose caused the internal bleed and that a competent carer following the correct protocol would not have made the error. The woman tells police she was exhausted but accepts she should have checked the dosage chart more carefully. The care home's records show that the woman had worked 14 consecutive days without a rest day before the incident. The resident's family had previously raised concerns with the care home about staffing levels. The care home manager confirms that the medication protocol is clearly set out in a laminated sheet attached to each resident's bed. The woman has worked at the care home for six years and has an otherwise excellent record. The woman had not consumed any alcohol or drugs before the shift.

Which offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is the woman most likely to be charged with?

Question 3

Scenario

A man and a woman are neighbours. They have been involved in a long-running dispute about the boundary between their properties. On one occasion, the man approaches the woman in her front garden and pushes her firmly in the shoulder with the flat of his hand. The woman stumbles backwards but does not fall. The woman attends her GP the following day complaining of pain in her shoulder. The GP examines her and finds bruising and tenderness but no fracture or dislocation. The GP records the injury as a soft tissue contusion and advises that it will heal within two to three weeks. The man is arrested and admits pushing the woman but says he did not intend to cause her any serious harm. He states he was frustrated because the woman had moved a fence panel onto what he considered to be his land. The woman provides a witness statement confirming the push and her subsequent injury. The prosecution is considering what charge to bring against the man. The man has one previous conviction for criminal damage, committed eight years ago. The woman's medical records show no pre-existing shoulder condition.

What is the most appropriate charge against the man?

Want to test your SQE1 baseline?

Try 100 free SQE1 questions across FLK1 and FLK2, with instant feedback, full explanations and no login required.

Try 100 free SQE1 questionsTry demoView pricing

Related Topics

Practise Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Questions for SQE1

Not sure where you stand for SQE1? Take ActusPrep's free 100-question SQE1 diagnostic test across FLK1 and FLK2, then use your results to focus your revision.