Assault
Assault Definition Element 1: Direct threat by the def
Element 2: That causes the pl to reasonably apprehend
A direct threat by the def that causes the pl to reasonably apprehend some imminent unwanted contact Words: - In general, mere words cannot constitute an assault; however, certain situations are excepted (Barton v Armstrong) - Words crender actions which would otherwise have constituted assault harmless (i.e. nullify a threat) (Tauberville v Savage) Conditional threats: - Example: cross the line and I will punch you - Can constitute an assault - Assault is therefore usually a physical gesture, which may be accompanied by words Intention: - Intention to carry out the threat is not necessary, only the intention to make the threat (Brian Rixon v Star City) Threats made over the phone: - Threats made of the phone are not characterised as mere words – therefore threats over the phone may constitute assault i.e. the actual action of using the phone constitutes a threatening act (Barton v Armstrong) Reasonableness: - Objective test: whether a reasonable person would apprehend imminent contact Means of carrying out the threat: - Not every threat in which there is no actual personal violence constitutes an assault, there must be a means of carrying the threat into effect
-
Element 3: Some imminent contact
Generally, if a person does not have the means to carry out the threat, it would not be reasonable to form an apprehension - Stephens v Myer: Irrelevant if the def couldn’t actually carry out the threat, merely that the pl reasonably believed that the threat could be carried out Threat of future contact generally does not constitute assault. However, there are circumstances where it has Zanker v Vartzokas: - The fear in the pl’s mind was ‘immediate and continuing … so long as she was imprisoned by the def’ - Because the pl was ‘at the mercy’ of the def, the threats of future harm were effectively imminent
Element 4: Positive Act
The plaintiff must establish that the interference occurred because of a positive act of the defendant as opposed to a failure to act (i.e. an omission): Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Element 5: Fault
Hall v Fonceca: - Liability will remain even if the def did not actually intend to hit the person, merely that they intended to create an apprehension of harm
Key Cases
Barton v Armstrong Brian Rixon v Star City Casino Zanker v Vartzakos
Battery Definition
When the def directly and intentionally interferes with the person of another without lawful justification
Element 2: That causes the pl to reasonably apprehend
A direct threat by the def that causes the pl to reasonably apprehend some imminent unwanted contact Words: - In general, mere words cannot constitute an assault; however, certain situations are excepted (Barton v Armstrong) - Words crender actions which would otherwise have constituted assault harmless (i.e. nullify a threat) (Tauberville v Savage) Conditional threats: - Example: cross the line and I will punch you - Can constitute an assault - Assault is therefore usually a physical gesture, which may be accompanied by words Intention: - Intention to carry out the threat is not necessary, only the intention to make the threat (Brian Rixon v Star City) Threats made over the phone: - Threats made of the phone are not characterised as mere words – therefore threats over the phone may constitute assault i.e. the actual action of using the phone constitutes a threatening act (Barton v Armstrong) Reasonableness: - Objective test: whether a reasonable person would apprehend imminent contact Means of carrying out the threat: - Not every threat in which there is no actual personal violence constitutes an assault, there must be a means of carrying the threat into effect
-
Element 3: Some imminent contact
Generally, if a person does not have the means to carry out the threat, it would not be reasonable to form an apprehension - Stephens v Myer: Irrelevant if the def couldn’t actually carry out the threat, merely that the pl reasonably believed that the threat could be carried out Threat of future contact generally does not constitute assault. However, there are circumstances where it has Zanker v Vartzokas: - The fear in the pl’s mind was ‘immediate and continuing … so long as she was imprisoned by the def’ - Because the pl was ‘at the mercy’ of the def, the threats of future harm were effectively imminent
Element 4: Positive Act
The plaintiff must establish that the interference occurred because of a positive act of the defendant as opposed to a failure to act (i.e. an omission): Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Element 5: Fault
Hall v Fonceca: - Liability will remain even if the def did not actually intend to hit the person, merely that they intended to create an apprehension of harm
Key Cases
Barton v Armstrong Brian Rixon v Star City Casino Zanker v Vartzakos
Battery Definition
When the def directly and intentionally interferes with the person of another without lawful justification
