COMMON ASSAULT

p has to show D has committed the AR and has the necessary ‘level’ of MR of the crime to be charged

ASSAULT

common law offence, but has been enshrined in s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
max. punishment is 6 months imprisonment, a £5000 fine or both
definition: “where the D intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence.’- FAGAN V MPC
requires no physical contact

words can be an act R V CONSTANZA: D wrote V over 800 letters, stalked her etc.
even silence is enough R V IRELAND: D made threatening phone calls
TUBERVILLE V SAVAGE: words can negate assault

‘immediate’: within a reasonable timeframe SMITH V CHEIF CONSTABLE OF WOKING: outside the house but can still fear. Intention of frightening . can be IMMINENT.
‘immediate’: STEPHEN V MYERS: promised to complete an unlawful act but couldn’t as someone intervened. Almost V can still apprehend immediate force.

‘unlawful force’: no consent does not need to be physical
‘unlawful force’: even if there is no actual risk of ‘force’, it is enough that V apprehends harm LOGDON V DPP: fake gun pointing at V ,V didn’t know was fake
force must be unlawful
level of force apprehended is the same as battery, but essentially is any unwanted touching - it doesnt need to be serious at all

‘intention’: aim/purpose FAGAN V MPC: realised had driven on policeman’s foot. Intention formed when did not move off.
‘recklessness’: subjective. R V PARMENTER: D needed to appreciate risk of injury

BATTERY

common law offence
assault + force (physical contact)
definition: ‘application of unlawful force to another person either by intent or recklessness’

‘force’

‘a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person’-Goff LJ COLLINS V WILCOCK: police grabbed prostitute to which she reacted but he wasn’t arresting her. Shouldn’t have touched her in first place.
touching clothes is sufficient R V THOMAS: school caretaker guilty of indecent assault (assault or battery plus a sexual element) touching their skirts
indirect act- like a trap- is sufficient as D causes force to be applied even if they haven’t personally touched victim R V MARTIN: played prank on theatre goers- pretending there was fire, leading to a stampede and many injuries. G of s20 (had to find battery first)
indirect act DPP V K: school boy put acid in hand drier, V sprayed with acid when used it. G s47

‘unlawful force’

consent is one reason why force may be lawful- bc if consented cant be unlawful
courts will also consider certain common ‘applications of force’ as having ‘implied consent’
in COLLINS V WILCOCK, Lord Goff said the following have ‘implied consent’: 1. ‘jostling which is inevitable, e.g supermarket’ 2. ‘busy street’, 3. ‘hand seized in friendship’ 4. back slapped’, 5. ‘touching a person for the purpose of engaging his attention’
tapping to get someone’s attention is LAWFUL DONNELLY V JACKSON: pc tapped d on shoulder, d punched him
‘acting within the bounds of what was generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life’ MCMILLAN V CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE: drunk woman supported by pc, tried to claim it was battery
force may be lawful if used in self-defence or prevention of a crime- his can only be if force is reasonable in the situation

‘correction of a child’

parents reasonably punishing children through force is acceptable under law
‘law recognises that moderate and reasonable chastisement of a child is lawful’
CHILDREN ACT 2004: Battery committed to a child is unlawful if it results in any injury
A V UK: boy had many bruises, his dad beat him with a cane. Smacking children was banned in Scotland 2020 and followed in Wales 2022.