Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Crim_Unit 2: Sub-1
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Definition of Simple Assault? | Any act which intentionally/recklessly, coz another person to apprehend immediate & unlawful personal force:Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] |
| Actus Reus of Simple Assault | Causing apprehension of immediate unlawful personal force ie V MUST think that he is about to be unlawfully touched.(Int & Reckless are MR concepts & should x appear in your answer.) |
| Has the actus reus of simple assault been committed? Bill chases after Syd, threatening to beat him up. | yes. apprehension of unlawful force important. X violence/touching is irrelevant as that is X an element of the AR. X need unlawful touching to result in injury/ harm. |
| Has the actus reus of simple assault been committed? David pulls out a gun and points it at Sanjay | yes. apprehension of unlawful force important. X violence/touching is irrelevant as that is X an element of the AR. X need unlawful touching to result in injury/ harm. |
| Has the actus reus of simple assault been committed?Lynne runs towards Mary and pushes her out of the way | yes.apprehension of unlawful force important. X violence/touching,irrelevant this is X an element of AR. Does X need unlawful touching for injury/harm. Enough IF Mary APPREHEND push |
| Has the actus reus of simple assault been committed? | NO. Anthony has approached unnoticed, J did X apprehend any unlawful force ,though we will see later on in this Sub-unit, when he jumps on Julie’s back it amounts to physical assault. |
| Bill chases after Syd, threatening to beat him up. Syd was a very large man, skilled in the art of self-defence, who is not afraid of Bill, would your answer be different? | No difference.The AR ONLY requires V to apprehend force(aware). He does X have to FEAR i.e frightened/afraid. As long as he thinks he is about to be unlawfully touched,is sufficient. |
| The House of Lords in R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534 | HOL in R v Ireland,clearly stated that WORDS ALONE CAN amount 2 ASSAULT.ALSO, HOL stated that silent telephone calls could amount to an assault. |
| a silent telephone call could amount to an assault? Reason 1 by Lord Steyn’s judgment in R v Ireland [1997] | Words alone CAN amount to assault as a thing said was also a thing done. X reason Y something said should be incapable of causing apprehension of immediate unlawful personal force. |
| a silent telephone call could amount to an assault? Reason 2 by Lord Steyn’s judgment in R v Ireland [1997] | A silent telephone call could be an assault ‘depending OTF’. A silent caller intends by his silence to cause fear. V may fear possibility of immediate unlawful personal force. |
| Important point to remember for assault | requirement that the threat must be of immediate unlawful personal force. V MUST anticipate that the force will occur immediately |
| So if the defendant says ‘I will be around next week with the boys to give you a good kicking’, | he will not be guilty of simple assault because the victim on hearing the threat realises that force might follow, but in a week’s time.V is X apprehending immediate force. |
| R v Burstow [1997] | D stalked V over years,sent photo,letters, phones & visit her home. V suffered psy. injury (consequence).Held:If V feared D could strike any time =sufficient to establish AR of assault. |
| One final point on the actus reus of simple assault is that of conditional threats | If D says ‘If u do x shut up, I will slap u’, Assault? Restriction unjustified & D liable for assault:Read v Coker (1853).Conditional threat also satisfies the ‘immediate’force requirement. |
| Read v Coker (1853) | This assumes that the conditional threat also satisfies the ‘immediate’ force requirement. |
| mens rea of simple assault | D MUST intend to cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful personal force/reckless as to whether such apprehension be caused (R v Venna [1976] QB 421). |
| R v Venna [1976] QB 421 | MR for simple assault is that D MUST intend to cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful personal force/be reckless as to whether such apprehension be caused |
| Test for recklessness, (R v Spratt [1991] | Subj.test, D MUST FORSEE risk that V will apprehend immediate unlawful personal force & go on to take that risk. Does x matter anyone would have foreseen e risk. If D did X,& Prosecution x prove, D can be acquitted. |
| Example scenario for subjective test of Recklessness | If D fires gun at tree near children’s play area & narrowly misses child ,D ONLY liable of assault IF prosecution can prove Int/ Reck of D as to the causing of the apprehension in the child. |
| Is MR present? Fred watching football match & close to pitch shouting & cheering. His team’s wing player (who has not been playing well) notices F standing close by with both arms raised & his fists clenched. & shouting,fears Fred is about to hit him. | Though AR present (coz WP feared he is about to be hit), MR x present. F only shout encouragement & so clearly x Intention to cause apprehension of immediate force.Further, F is x reckless as he did x realise there was a risk for that fear. |
| Physical Assault or battery | can have physical assault w/out a simple assault, e.g D approaches V from behind, unheard,& hits head. The victim did not apprehend the force (as he did not hear the defendant) and thus there is no simple assault but there clearly is a PHYSICAL ASSAULT. |
| E.g of simple assault and physical assault | e.g If Fred, in the example when he had queue-jumped in front of you at the bar, after threatening to smash your face in, then deliberately pushed you out of the way – he would be liable for physical assault as well as simple assault. |
| physical assault | Commonly, physical assault involves pushing, prodding or hitting but it can,& often does, involve use of a weapon. Equally,spitting at someone or deliberately cycling over their foot are physical assaults. No injury is required, such as a bruise or a cut. |
| Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000] 3 All ER 890 | D guilty of phys. assault on baby (punched bb's mom,causing bb's drop.D argued AR required direct application of force & for assailant to have direct physical contact with complainant. Crt rejected held X essential that force should be directly inflicted. |
| The mens rea of physical assault | The mens rea of physical assault is to intentionally or recklessly inflict the unlawful force. |
| Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 47) | s.47- Max sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment and is triable either way (ie magistrates’/Crown Court). |
| The actus reus of s 47 of the OAPA 1861 | 3 elements of the AR of s 47.1. an assault 2. which occasions (ie causes);3. actual bodily harm. |
| R v Miller [1954] 2 QB 282 | Actual bodily harm, according to R v Miller,means any hurt/injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. Any harm does not have to be serious and a bruise, scratch or swelling would suffice. |
| Does Mental Harm Suffice for Actual Bodily Harm? L.Steyn confirmed earlier case of R v Chan-Fook [1994]& made it clear that.. ■ Anxiety neurosis ■ Reactive depression ■ Extreme fear ■ Panic | ABH capable of including psy.injury. BUT MUST be recognised clinical condition,e.g.anxiety neurosis or reactive depression. Strong emotions i.e rage,extreme fear/ panic,hysterical/nervous condition would X suffice. |
| The mens rea of s 47 of the OAPA 1861 Finally answered in House of Lords case of R v Savage;R v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699 | HOL decided MR -Intention/Reckless as to the ASSAULY ONLY. The prosecution DID X have to prove D intended/reckless as to the harm. Thus, the element of causing ABH is relevant ONLY to AR of this offence NOT the MR, & is an element of STRICT LIABILITY. |
| Applying the Mens Rea of s 47 of the OAPA 1861 if Vijay, who had hit and injured Barry by giving him a black eye, argued ‘OK, I admit I intended to hit him but I never meant to injure or harm him and the thought never entered my head that I might’ – is | Actus reus: Vijay needs to have assaulted and thereby caused actual bodily harm. He has because he hit Barry (the assault) which caused (occasioned) a black eye (the actual bodily harm). Mens rea: The mens rea is to intend or be reckless as to the as |
Created by:
skylinerz
Popular Law sets