Aggravated Assault
Aggravated assault is a serious form of assault that involves the intentional infliction of severe bodily harm or the use of a deadly weapon. It is typically considered a felony and carries harsher penalties than simple assault. Factors such as the severity of the injury, the use of a weapon, and the status of the victim can all contribute to an assault being classified as aggravated.
6 Key excerpts on "Aggravated Assault"
eBook - ePub- (Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Straightforward Publishing Digital(Publisher)
...4 Non-Fatal offences against the person Assault An assault, or common assault, arises when the person accused of assault intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. In the case of Ireland 1998, the House of Lords confirmed the above definition. If the offence is assault however, this concerns the inflicting of actual harm. Assault and battery are separate offences and are contained within s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which repealed s47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 states that common assault and battery are to be treated as summary offences with a maximum sentence of six months. Actus reus of assault The actus reus of assault occurs when the accused causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. No force need be applied. Any conduct which causes the victim to believe that he or she is to be assaulted can amount to an assault. In the case of Wilson 1955, Lord Goddard stated that words alone can constitute an assault. In the case of Ireland 1988 the House of Lords also decided that silence can amount to an assault. In this case, the accused terrorised women with silent phone calls. The threat of assault The victim must believe that immediate violence is about to be inflicted on him, although the courts will interpret this liberally. Provide the victim believes that he might be subjected to immediate violence, the fear need not be completely rational. In Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station 1983, it was stated ‘When one is in a state of terror, one is very often unable to analyse precisely what one is frightened of as likely to happen next’. In this case, the victim was frightened by the accused, who was staring at her through the windows of her home. The defence in this case argued that the action could not have constituted assault because all windows and doors were locked...
eBook - ePub- Jacqueline Martin(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...There must be intent to cause grievous bodily harm (Taylor (2009)). 5 Where the charge is causing grievous bodily harm or wounding when intending to resist or prevent arrest or detention, then the word ‘maliciously’ is important. The prosecution must prove that the defendant had specific intention to resist or prevent arrest but they need only prove that he was reckless as to whether his actions would cause a wound or injury (Morrison (1989)). 11.5 Racially Aggravated Assaults 1 Under s 29 Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a common assault or an offence under s 47 or s 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 becomes a racially Aggravated Assault if either: • at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group; or • the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group. 2 Where an offence is racially aggravated in this way, the maximum penalty is increased from six months to two years for common assault and from five years to seven years for both s 47 and s 20. 11.6 Administering poison 1 The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 creates two offences: • s 23 ‘Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of (an offence) …’. • s 24 ‘Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or...
eBook - ePub- Lisa Cherkassky(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...C hapter 9 Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Non-fatal offences against the person usually require some kind of infliction of force upon the body. The offence charged will depend on the seriousness of the injury inflicted and the mental element of the defendant. Non-fatal offences against the person will be explored in detail in this chapter. The offences listed above are very old criminal offences. Assault and battery are founded in common law (although the Criminal Justice Act 1988 recognises their existence). Actual bodily harm, malicious wounding and grievous bodily harm are statutory offences dating back to 1861. 9.1 Assault Assault is a common law offence and is defined by case law. However, it is charged under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988: ‘Common law assault [and battery] shall be summary of-fences and a person guilty of either of them shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.’ 9.1.1 The Actus Reus of Assault The act of assault was defined by Collins v Wilcock (1984). Workpoint The actus reus of assault is below...
eBook - ePub- Claudia Carr, Maureen Johnson(Authors)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Remember all of the elements of a crime must be present for the crime to be committed, and there must be no defences available to the defendant for a successful prosecution. In the case of non fatal offences, a person may well plead self defence as a defence to the criminal charge. For more on self defence, see Chapter 6. Common Law Offences Assault Assault is sometimes charged alongside battery as ‘assault and battery’ or ‘common assault’ on a charge sheet. In spite of this, assault is a separate crime at common law. Confusingly, the word assault is also sometimes used as a shorthand form of ‘assault and battery’! Here we will use the word assault to mean ‘pure assault’ where there is no physical contact with the victim. The classification of assault as a summary offence (triable at the magistrates’ court only), and the penalty for the crime is laid down in s 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. This reads: s 39 – Common assault and battery to be summary offences. Common assault and battery shall be summary offences and a person guilty of either of them shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both. Assault is not defined in a statute. It is such an ancient crime that its beginnings are lost in the history of the legal system. However, the law takes the definition of the elements of assault from case law. Actus reus Violence It is important to note that there doesn’t actually have to BE any violence, just the apprehension that it is about to occur. Shaking a raised fist at a person or threatening them by words alone can be enough to satisfy a charge. In the case of Lamb [1967] 2 QBD 981 a man laughed and joked as his friend pointed a gun at him. Neither of them knew the gun was loaded and when the friend ‘pretended’ to fire the gun, the man was killed...
eBook - ePub- Rodger Geary(Author)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
...Chapter 5 Offences Against the Person Non-Fatal Offences Assault It is now settled by s 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 that assault and battery are two separate offences (DPP v Little (1991)). However, the term ‘common assault’ has been held to mean either assault or battery (Lynsey (1995)). Actus Reus In R v Burstow, R v Ireland (1997), the House of Lords confirmed the traditionally accepted definition of assault: Any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. Their Lordships also cleared up an area of long term uncertainty in the criminal law, by holding that an assault could be committed by words alone. Indeed, Lord Hope indicated that an assault would be committed in the context of a silent telephone call where the silence conveys a threatening message to the victim. It should be noted that this is not an assault by omission since there clearly is an act: that of making the phone call. It seems that the courts will now consider whether, as a result of the defendant’s actions (including his words and silences), the victim feared immediate physical violence. If so, then it would appear that the actus reus of assault has been established. Not only can words constitute an assault, but they can also negate an assault. In the old case of Tuberville v Savage (1669), there was held to be no assault when the defendant reached for his sword and said: ‘If it were not assize time I would not take such language from you.’ Since, in fact, the judges were in town, the meaning of this statement was that the defendant was not going to attack the victim. The fear that might have been caused by the conduct of reaching for the sword was negated by the accompanying words...
eBook - ePub- Routledge(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...47 Offences against the Person Act 1861 • malicious wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm – s. 20 Offences against the Person Act 1861 • malicious wounding/causing grievous bodily harm with intent – s. 18 Offences against the Person Act 1861 This list begins with the least serious and works its way down. In an answer to a problem question, you would usually work the other way around, starting with the most serious offence first. This chapter also looks at the offences found in ss 23–24 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the issue of consent. It then examines the main sexual offences found in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. ASSAULT AND BATTERY Actus reus Assault and battery are separate summary offences. The actus reus of an assault consists of causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful physical violence (Logden v DPP [1976]). For many years, it was uncertain whether words alone could constitute an assault (R v Meade and Belt [1823] ; R v Wilson [1955]). In R v Burstow ; R v Ireland [1997], the House of Lords held that an assault could be committed by words alone, thus ending this longstanding uncertainty. The emphasis is now on the effect of the defendant’s actions on the victim, rather than the means adopted by the defendant. The actus reus of a battery consists of the actual infliction of unlawful physical violence. The degree of ‘violence’ required is minimal and can consist of the least touching of another (Cole v Turner [1705]). Touching a person’s clothing will amount to a battery, provided the contact is both unauthorised and capable of being felt by the victim (R v Thomas [1985]). The courts presume that people impliedly consent to the normal touching that occurs in everyday life (Collins v Wilcock [1984]). A battery can occur by indirect force where the defendant uses a weapon or other instrument to inflict physical harm on the victim, such as a car (Fagan v MPC [1968]). Also a battery may be caused by the indirect use of force...
