Assault
Assault refers to the intentional act of causing someone to fear that they will be physically harmed. It does not necessarily involve physical contact, but rather the threat or attempt to cause harm. In legal terms, assault is often distinguished from battery, which involves actual physical contact.
8 Key excerpts on "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 Assault and battery are separate offences and are contained within s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which repealed s47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.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...
...He said that he would pull Mr S out of the chair rather than be expelled and went towards Mr S with his fist clenched. Others intervened to stop him before he could reach Mr S. The lawyer acting for Mr M said that there could be no Assault as Mr M had been unable to carry out the threat, but the witnesses said that he clearly intended to do so had he not been restrained. Mr M was found liable for Assault on the basis that he was advancing towards the chairman with the intent of hitting him. The victim must believe that force will be used The assailant’s behaviour must lead the victim to believe that force is about to be used against him. This belief must be genuine. This means that, even though there is no requirement that the belief be reasonable in the circumstances, an unreasonable belief is less likely to be thought to be genuine. It is not necessary for the victim to suffer fear or be scared. The point was made in the following case: R v St George (1840) An unloaded gun was pointed at the victim. As the victim did not know that the gun was not loaded, the apprehension that he was about to be shot was reasonable – the defendant was found guilty of Assault. Do you think that the law does enough to protect us from threats of violence? Battery Definition ‘Battery’ is defined by the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as ‘the action of battering or assailing with blows; … an unlawful attack upon another by beating, etc., including technically the least touching of another’s person or clothes in a menacing manner’. As will be seen, the definition of the tort is in fact very similar. Battery is the direct and intentional application of force to another person. Touching The least touch may amount to a battery. There is no requirement that the victim should be injured in any way, so that an unwanted kiss may be enough. Case law gives examples of activities which have been held to amount to a battery...
eBook - ePub- Sanmeet Kaur Dua, Chris Turner(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...The components are: ■ Assault ■ battery ■ false imprisonment. Assault and battery will each be defined and explained, the defences applicable to both these torts being considered together. False imprisonment will then be considered separately. Trespass to the person can be committed in one of three ways (see Figure 13.1). 13.2 Assault 13.2.1 Definition The tort can be defined in various ways. For example: ■ ‘The act of putting another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of an immediate battery by means of an act amounting to an attempt or threat to commit a battery amounts to an actionable Assault’ (R E V Heuston and R A Buckley, Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts (20th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 1992), p. 127). ■ ‘Assault is an act of the defendant which causes the claimant reasonable apprehension of the infliction of a battery on him by the defendant’ (W V H Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2002), p. 71). ■ ‘An Assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person’ (Goff LJ in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374). Figure 13.1 How liability is established in the different types of trespass to the person. As will be seen, none of these definitions covers all the essential elements of the tort. A better definition is perhaps: an Assault is some direct and intentional conduct by the defendant which causes the victim reasonably to fear that unlawful force is about to be used upon their person. 13.2.2 Ingredients of the tort Direct and intentional The words direct and intentional have the meaning discussed in section 13.1. Conduct Conduct in this context amounts to something which threatens the use of unlawful force. An obvious example is shaking a fist under someone’s nose causing them to fear that they are about to be punched...
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- Jacqueline Martin(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...11 Non-fatal offences against the person The main offences are set out in the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861. This did not create a coherent set of offences and there have been many problems in the law. The Law Commission has proposed a complete reform of the law but, as yet, Parliament has not reformed the law. The chart at the start of the chapter shows key points of four important offences against the person. 11.1 Common Assault 1 There are two ways of committing this: • Assault; and • battery. 2 Both of these offences are charged under s 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 and are summary offences. 11.1.1 Assault 1 This is also known as a technical Assault or a psychic Assault. 2 The defendant intentionally or subjectively recklessly causes another person to fear immediate unlawful personal violence. Actus reus of an Assault 1 An Assault requires some act or words; an omission is not enough (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)). 2 Words are sufficient for an Assault; even silent telephone calls can be an Assault (Ireland (1998)). 3 Words indicating there will be no violence may prevent an act from being an Assault (Tuberville v Savage (1669)), but not in all circumstances (Light (1843)). 4 Fear of immediate force is necessary; this does not mean instantaneous, but ‘imminent’, so an Assault can be through a...
eBook - ePubCriminal Law for Criminologists
Principles and Theory in Criminal Justice
- Noel Cross(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...The important case of Ireland; Burstow [1998] AC 147 made it clear that Assault can be committed by words alone. The threat of violence does not have to be capable of being carried out immediately, in the sense of the next few seconds. In Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr App Rep 234, V saw D through a closed and locked window. D was guilty of Assault even though it would have taken him some time to get through the window and cause unlawful violence to V. Ireland; Burstow extends this principle further. Here, V, fearing the ‘possibility’ of immediate violence was enough to meet the actus reus requirements for Assault. This could occur where, for example, D makes threatening phone calls to V, and V does not know exactly where D is but fears that D might be close enough to carry out the threat of unlawful violence immediately. Mens rea Venna [1976] emphasised that common Assault can be committed either intentionally or recklessly. Savage; Parmenter [1991] 1 AC 699 states that subjective recklessness is required, so that D must see the risk of V apprehending immediate unlawful violence, and continue with their actions anyway. Study exercise 6.1 Do we still need the offence of common Assault in criminal law now that we have offences of harassment and stalking? Battery Actus reus The actus reus of battery is causing application of unlawful force to V’s body (DPP v Taylor; Little). As with common Assault, the actus reus of battery is defined in s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 but is also a common law offence. Any force applied to someone else’s body can be enough for the actus reus of battery – at least in theory. The actus reus of battery is normally direct application of force (Fagan v MPC). A few cases extend this principle to situations where D has not directly applied force to V’s body but has still ‘caused’ unlawful force to be applied...
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...
