Assault Learning Objectives Define Assault Explain the Actus

Assault Learning Objectives • Define Assault • Explain the Actus Reus and Mens Rea of assault • Analyse case law on assault

“Common Assault” • Assault and Battery are 2 separate offences • One can be committed without the other • Together they are called “common assault” • Both common law offences • But they are recognised in Statute - S. 39 Criminal Justice Act – states they are both summary offences with a maximum sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment or a fine.

Assault - Definition • Ireland – D intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence

Assault – Actus Reus • An act • Causing the victim • To apprehend • Immediate and • Unlawful violence • This means to satisfy the AR, we need to consider 5 separate points

1. Actus Reus – “An act” • Cannot be an omission • Can be actions, gestures, words or silence • E. g. waving a knife, a gesture like running a finger across your throat • Constanza – written words alone are enough for an assault – D stalked V and content of letters was an assault as V read them as threats – therefore other written communications like emails and texts can also constitute assault • Ireland – words are enough for an assault • Ireland – Silence can amount to an assault - silent telephone calls • Tuberville v Savage – words can also prevent an assault if they indicate D is not intending to cause the harm

2. Actus Reus - “Cause” • Apply usual rules of causation

3. Actus Reus - “Apprehend” • No need for any physical contact between D and V – it is about what V thought was about to happen • Don’t need fear – just apprehension – expectation or anticipation • If V doesn’t apprehend immediate force, assault has not been committed - Lamb – if other person does not expect violence there can be no assault – 2 friends playing with a gun, one man shot by the other but no assault as the shot man had not appreciated that the gun would go off • Doesn’t matter if D made his threat as a joke if V believed him – Logdon – D, as a joke, pointed a gun at V who was terrified until she was told that it was in fact a replica. Court held that V had apprehended physical violence

4. Actus Reus - “Immediate” • Quite a wide interpretation of this • Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station – “peeping Tom” looked through V’s bedroom window at night. She apprehended immediate and unlawful personal violence even though he was outside – immediate does not need to be instantaneous • Ireland – Silent telephone calls - V held to be in fear of immediate personal violence as she could not know exactly where D was when making the phone-call

5. Actus Reus – “Unlawful Violence or force” • V does not need to apprehend any injury, pain or harm • Force apprehended can be a mere touch, provided it is unwanted • Must be unlawful – usually due to lack of consent • E. g. police officer threatening to handcuff someone or restrain them if they don’t co-operate is not assault

Mens Rea • Matches the AR - DO NOT need to intend carrying out the actual violence – only making V apprehend it • Savage: • Intention to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence; or • Recklessness as to whether the victim apprehends unlawful and immediate violence • Can be direct or indirect (oblique) intent • Recklessness is Cunningham recklessness – D must realise that his acts or words could cause V to apprehend violence

Answering Questions on Assault 1. Was there an act? What was it? 2. Did the act: • • Cause (normal causation rules) V to apprehend Immediate Unlawful violence/force? 3. Was there intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence