• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/12

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

12 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

What is an assault?

Where D intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend imminent unlawful force

S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Punishment for assault is 6 months in prison, fine or both

Actus Reus of assault

D does something to cause V to apprehend imminent unlawful force

R v Ireland (what constitutes an assault) (immediacy)

'The proposition that a gesture may amount to an assault but that words never can suffice, is unrealistic and indefensible'. D made silent phone calls to 3 different women. He did this repeatedly (mostly at night) and sometimes resorted to heavy breathing but otherwise complete silence.


Court got round issue of immediacy by talking about the victims fearing the possibility of immediate personal violence

Tuberville v Savage (what constitutes an assault)

Words may negate an assault. However conditional threats need to be distinguished from words negating an assault

Read v Coker (what constitutes an assault)

Group of people surrounded the victim and rolled up their sleeves and threatened to break his neck if he did not leave the premises. The court said this conditional threat constituted an assault.

Logdon v DPP (what constitutes an assault)

D showed victim a gun and threatened to take him hostage. He was charged with assault and the defendant argued he didn't intend to carry out the threat because the gun was fake. Court said this didn't matter because all that was needed was for V to apprehend imminent force.

Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (immediacy)

V was sitting in her home and noticed a man outside her window. There was an attempt to say there was no assault because it was not imminent enough but the court rejected this argument because they said the victim apprehended a sufficiently immediate application of force. but note the judge limited his decision so that D must be immediately outside the window.

Constanza (immediacy)

D made silent phone calls and sent over 800 letters to V. V interpreted the last two phonecalls as posing a clear threat to her. The court said the assault was committed as soon as V read the two letters because she feared force at some time, not excluding the immediate future (very generous interpretation of 'immediate')


Mens read of assault

D must intentionally cause V to apprehend force or to be reckless as to whether such apprehension can be caused

Venna (recklessness)

Recklessness is sufficient mens rea for assault

Savage, Parmenter (recklessness)

confirms Venna position on recklessness