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 |