assault

• Definition of assault

  Case - Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968)

  Where the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence.

  This was confirmed in R v Ireland (1997).
• Actus reus of an assault


  • An 'act'
  • Causation
  • Apprehend
  • Immediate
  • Unlawful force
• Actus reus - an 'act'


  For an assault, you can only have an act. An omission is not sufficient to amount to an assault.

  Case - Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
• Actus reus - an 'act' 


  An assault has to be an act of a physical kind.

  Case - R v Nelson
• Actus reus - an 'act' 


  An act can also be words, which are written or verbalised.

  Case - R v Constanza
• Actus reus - an 'act' 


  An act can also be silence.

  Case - R v Ireland
• Actus reus - causation


  • Factual causation - 'but for test' - R v Pagett
  • Legal Causation - 'more than a slight or trifling link' + 'more than minimal' - R v Kimsey + R v Hughes
  • Intervening act - Medical intervention + Victim's own act - R v Jordan + R v Roberts.
• Actus reus - apprehend


  If the victim does not anticipate unlawful force, then it cannot be an assault.

  Case - R v Lamb
• Actus reus - Immediate


  By 'immediate', we do not mean instantaneously. Rather, we mean 'imminent'.

  Case - Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station
• Actus reus - Immediate


  If as part of the 'act' the defendant says something to indicate that there will not be an immediate violence, then this may prevent the actions from amounting to an assault.

  Case - Tuberville and Savage

  Furthermore, there is no assault if it is obvious that the defendant cannot actually use force.
• Actus reus - Immediate


  To judge what is immediate will depend on the circumstances of the case.

  Case - R v Light
• Actus reus - Unlawful force


  Fear of any unwanted touching is sufficient, and the force feared need not be serious.

  The force feared however does need to be unlawful.

  It is not unlawful if the victim gives consent (e.g. in sports) and it is in self-defence.

  Force is seen as lawful regarding the correction of a child's behaviour by a parent.
• Mens rea - Intention or Recklessness


  For an assault, the defendant has to have either an intention to cause another to fear immediate personal violence, or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused.

  If the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated whilst doing the prohibited conduct, this is seen in the law as committing the offence recklessly.

  Case - DPP v Majewski
• Mens rea - Intention or Recklessness


  • Direct intention - this is where our defendant's main aim/purpose matches the desired consequence - R v Mohan
  • Oblique intention - This is where the defendant's main aim/purpose does not match the consequences. Therefore, we need to test whether 1) the consequence was virtually certain 2) whether the defendant foresaw that consequence - R v Woollin
  • Subjective recklessness - This is where the defendant knows there is a risk but chooses to take that risk anyway - R v Cunningham