Criminal: Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person
Criminal: Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Assault
definition: ‘any act which intentionally, or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’ – Fagan v MPC [1969] per [James J]. R v Ireland/Burstow [1998]: confirmed by HoL. DEBATE: assault + battery: common law or statutory offence? common law: definitions. statute: procedure + punishment – s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. DPP v Little: assault statutory offence under s39 CJA 1988. AKA: “common assault”, “technical assault”, “assault properly so called”.
Actus Reus: ‘any act which causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’.
- Any act: words + silence sufficient. old position: words not assault – R v Mead & Belt [1823]. words: R v Wilson [1955]: [Ld Goddard] obiter: words ‘get the knives out’ sufficient. words/silence: R v Ireland/Burstow: silent phone calls – [Ld Steyn]: ‘a thing said is a thing done’. words can negate assault: Tuberville v Savage [1669]: violence threatened ‘if it were not assize-time’.
- Apprehension of personal violence. apprehension: OED – ‘understand, perceive’; no actual contact needed.
victim must actually apprehend violence: R v Lamb [1976]: no assault when d. + v. believed brandished gun would not fire (also no MR). if apprehension, irrelevant that d. in fact unable to carry out threat: Logdon v DPP [1976]: threat of holding v. hostage with gun assault, even though gun replica. thin skull rule: irrelevant if victim unusually sensitive in perceiving threats (but may negate MR).
- Immediate, unlawful personal violence. personal violence: physical violence only – R v Ireland/Burstow. not psychological violence: may be covered by other statutes – e.g. Protection from Harassment Act 1997. immediate: v. must apprehend violence in immediate future – but now liberal interpretation: sufficient for v. immediately to apprehend violence? Tuberville v Savage: ‘if it were not assize-time’ no assault: threat not immediate. Smith v Chief Supt Woking Police Station [1983]: d. immediately adjacent but on other side of window still assault: terrified victims unable to consider rationally. R v Constanza [1997]: reading threatening letter from stalker (living nearby) sufficient for assault to be apprehended ‘at some point not excluding the immediate future’. R v Ireland/Burstow: [Ld Steyn]: v. may fear ‘possibility of immediate personal violence’. unlawful: no defence applies – self-defence, necessity, consent.
Mens Rea: ‘intentionally or recklessly’. R v Venna [1976]: intention or recklessness as to causing v. to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. facts: d. lashed out while being held down by police, injured officer assault occasioning ABH: sufficient that reckless. R v Savage/Parmenter [1992]: HoL: Cunningham recklessness needed: subjective – accused has foreseen particular kind of harm might be done + has gone on to take the risk.
definition: ‘any act which intentionally, or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’ – Fagan v MPC [1969] per [James J]. R v Ireland/Burstow [1998]: confirmed by HoL. DEBATE: assault + battery: common law or statutory offence? common law: definitions. statute: procedure + punishment – s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. DPP v Little: assault statutory offence under s39 CJA 1988. AKA: “common assault”, “technical assault”, “assault properly so called”.
Actus Reus: ‘any act which causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’.
- Any act: words + silence sufficient. old position: words not assault – R v Mead & Belt [1823]. words: R v Wilson [1955]: [Ld Goddard] obiter: words ‘get the knives out’ sufficient. words/silence: R v Ireland/Burstow: silent phone calls – [Ld Steyn]: ‘a thing said is a thing done’. words can negate assault: Tuberville v Savage [1669]: violence threatened ‘if it were not assize-time’.
- Apprehension of personal violence. apprehension: OED – ‘understand, perceive’; no actual contact needed.
victim must actually apprehend violence: R v Lamb [1976]: no assault when d. + v. believed brandished gun would not fire (also no MR). if apprehension, irrelevant that d. in fact unable to carry out threat: Logdon v DPP [1976]: threat of holding v. hostage with gun assault, even though gun replica. thin skull rule: irrelevant if victim unusually sensitive in perceiving threats (but may negate MR).
- Immediate, unlawful personal violence. personal violence: physical violence only – R v Ireland/Burstow. not psychological violence: may be covered by other statutes – e.g. Protection from Harassment Act 1997. immediate: v. must apprehend violence in immediate future – but now liberal interpretation: sufficient for v. immediately to apprehend violence? Tuberville v Savage: ‘if it were not assize-time’ no assault: threat not immediate. Smith v Chief Supt Woking Police Station [1983]: d. immediately adjacent but on other side of window still assault: terrified victims unable to consider rationally. R v Constanza [1997]: reading threatening letter from stalker (living nearby) sufficient for assault to be apprehended ‘at some point not excluding the immediate future’. R v Ireland/Burstow: [Ld Steyn]: v. may fear ‘possibility of immediate personal violence’. unlawful: no defence applies – self-defence, necessity, consent.
Mens Rea: ‘intentionally or recklessly’. R v Venna [1976]: intention or recklessness as to causing v. to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. facts: d. lashed out while being held down by police, injured officer assault occasioning ABH: sufficient that reckless. R v Savage/Parmenter [1992]: HoL: Cunningham recklessness needed: subjective – accused has foreseen particular kind of harm might be done + has gone on to take the risk.
