Assault and Battery (Common Assault)

What is meant by Common Assault?

Assault and Battery

Which statute is Assault and Battery (Common Assault) sentenced under, and what is the maximum sentence for it?

s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

6 months imprisonment or a fine upto £5000 (Summary Offence→ Tried in Magistrates’ Court)

Assault is a common law offence (sentenced under statute), Which case was this defined in?

Ireland

What is the definition of Assault?

An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of unlawful force with either intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful violence or reckless as to whether such fear is caused

Does assault involve physical contact of D and V?

No

Assault is a Threat of Force and No Actual Physical Force is used

What ae the 3 Actus Reus elements of Assault?

• An Act

• Fear of Force

• Unlawful use of Force is immediate

What is meant by an Act?

• Assault cannot be an omission (failure to act)

• Requires an act or words- (Not necessarily physical contact)

• Actus Reus is completed when D does any act or says something which causes V to believe that unlawful force is about to be used against him/her

How does the case of Ireland show what is meant by an Act?

Ireland

• D made several silent phone calls to 3 women

• V may fear that the purpose of the call is to determine if she is at home and that the caller is about to come to her home immediately after the call

How does the case of Constanza show what is meant by an Act?

Constanza

• D had written over hundreds of letters and made a number of phone calls to V

• V interpreted the last few letters as clear threats

• There was an assault as there was a “fear of violence” at some time, not excluding the immediate future

How does the case of R V Misalati show what is meant by an Act?

R V Misalati

• D was verbally and racially abusing the staff at a Job centre

• There was evidence that the members of staff feared violence and he was convicted of assault

What is meant by Fear of Force?

• Act/Words must cause V to fear that immediate force is going to be is going to be used against them

• If it is obvious that D cannot use force, then there is no assault

How can the case of Logdon show what is meant by a Fear of Force?

Logdon

• D, as a joke, pointed a gun at V, who was terrified until she was told it was a replica

• V had apprehended immediate physical violence, and D had been at the very least, reckless as to whether this would occur

How can the case of Lamb show what is meant by a Fear of Force and how does it contrast with Logdon?

Lamb

• Ds were playing with what they both thought was an unloaded gun

• Lamb pointed it at V and pulled the trigger

• There was no assault as V did not think the gun could fire and therefore there was no assault as there was no fear

Contrasts with Logdon

Words can negate(cancel out) an assault, how does the case of Tuberville V Savage show this?

Tuberville V Savage

• A man put a hand on his sword and said “if it were not assize-time (seize fire) I would not take such language from you”

• Despite the act which made V fear immediate violence by putting his hand on his sword, the words that accompanied negated the act and showed there was no violence that was going to be used

Words can negate(cancel out) an assault, how does the case of R V Light show this, and how does it contrast with Tuberville V Savage?

R V Light

• D raised a sword above the head of his wife and said "If not for the bloody police man outside, I would split your head open.”

• It was held that this was an assault. The wife of D thought that force was going to be used on her and the words in the circumstances were not enough to negate that fear.

Contrasts with Tuberville V Savage

What is meant by Immediate Force?

The force must be immediate, but this does not mean instantaneous, but “imminent” (Soon after)

How does the case of Smith V Chief Constable of Woking show what is meant by Immediate Force?

Smith V Chief Constable of Woking

• D entered a private garden at night and looked through the bedroom window of the V

• She was terrified and thought he was about to enter the room and she would be subject to violence

• D was guilty of assault

After establishing the Actus Reus, and before establishing Mens Rea of assault, what do you have to prove and how?

Occasioning (Causation)

• Factual Causation

  • But For Test (R V White, R V Pagett)

• Legal Causation

  • De Minimis Principle (R V Kimsey, R V Dalloway)

  • Thin-Skull Rule (Blaue)

  • Novus Actus Interveniens

    • V’s Own Act (Kennedy, Roberts, Williams)

    • Medical Intervention (Smith, Cheshire, Jordan)

What are the 2 types of Mens Rea for Assault?

Either

• An intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful violence

OR

• Recklessness as to whether such fear is caused

It is a crime of Basic Intent

In terms of an intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful violence, what are the two types of intention? (Not recklessness)

• Direct Intent

  • D’s aim, purpose and desire (R V Mohan)

• Indirect Intent (Oblique)

  • D intends one outcome, but another occurs

  • Virtually Certain Test (R V Woolin)

How can Recklessness as to whether such fear is caused be proved?

• Recklessness

  • D foresees risk but does it anyway

  • Subjective Cunningham Test (Cunningham)

What is the definition of Battery, and which case was it defined in?

Unlawful application of force by D upon V, intentionally or recklessly as the force applied,

Defined in Fagan

What are the 2 elements of the Actus Reus of Battery?

• Application of Force

• Unlawful Force

What is meant by Application of Force?

There must be an application of some force (Touching is enough)

How does the case of Thomas show the Application of Force?

Thomas

• Caretaker was charged with indecent assault after touching the hem of a 12 year-old girl’s skirt

• Whilst it was determined that there wasn’t an indecent act, it was decided that if you touch clothing whilst a person is wearing them, this is equivalent to touching them

Which case shows the Application of Force can be continuing act?

Fagan

• A man drove over a policeman’s foot, he was told to move but refused

• This created the Actus Reus and the added Mens Rea

How does the case of Faulkner V Talbot show the Application of Force?

Faulkner V Talbot

• A judge defined physical force as any intentional (Or reckless) touching of another person without consent of that person and without lawful excuse

• It need not necessarily be hostile, rude or aggressive

How does the case of Collins V Wilcock show Unlawful Force?

Collins V Wilcock

• 2 POs saw D soliciting

• They asked her to get into the police car for questioning but she refused and walked away

• One of the POs walked after her and trying to find out her identity, took hold of her arm to prevent her from leaving

• She became abusive and scratched the PO’s arm

• D was convicted of assaulting a police officer

• She appealed saying the PO committed battery on her by holding her arm

• The court decided that touching a person to get his attention was acceptable, provided that no greater degree of physical contact was used than was necessary

Actus Reus can be indirect or direct, How can the case of DPP V K be used to show an Indirect Battery?

DPP V K

• D hid acid in a hand dryer in the bathroom

• The next person who used the dryer was sprayed with acid

• This was held as an indirect application of force

Actus Reus can be indirect or direct, How can the case of Haystead be used to show an Indirect Battery?

Haystead

• D caused a child to fall to the floor by punching the person who was holding the child

• D was guilty of battery- He didn’t intend to injure the child but the principle of transferred malice applied

What is the rule of Omissions in Battery?

As the Actus Reus of battery is the application of unlawful force, omitting to perform an act is rarely battery

How does the case of DPP V Santa-Bermudez show an omission being a battery?

DPP V Santa-Bermudez

• A PO, before searching D’s pockets, asked him if he had any needles or other sharp objects on him

• D replied “no” but when the police officer put her hand in his pocket, she was injured by a needle which caused bleeding

• D’s failure to tell the PO about the needle could amount to the Actus Reus of the offence

Which 2 contrasting cases can be used to show unlawful force involving police officers?

Pegram V DPP

• A PO took hold of Pegram’s arm to get his attention and warn him he may be about to commit a public offence

• The court decided that it is generally acceptable to make moderate physical contact with any other person to get attract their attention

Wood V DPP

• A PO took hold of Wood’s arm to check his identity

• The PO had no power of arrest so he could not detain him without committing a technical battery

  Even touching the victim’s clothing can be sufficient for a battery

Lawful force negates any offence of battery, What is meant by this and give examples?

Implied consent in normal social situations

• Tap on the shoulder to get attention

• Jostling on public transport

• Bumping in corridors

What are the 2 types of Mens Rea for Battery?

Either

• Intention to apply unlawful physical Force

OR

• Recklessness that the force will be applied

It is a crime of Basic Intent