Assault

Question 1

PC Harris is off duty and out shopping with his family. He is aware of a shoplifter ‘kicking off’ and goes over. He sees that the security guard is struggling with the detained male on the floor and as such goes over to assist. As the suspect is struggling PC Harris suffers some reddening of the skin and also a small scratch. Uniformed police arrive and as the suspect is being taken away he shouts to PC Harris, ‘how did I know you were a copper?’

Considering the offence of Assault Police (section 89 of the Police Act 1996) which of the following is correct?

Answer 1

The offence is made out as PC Harris has been assaulted in the execution of his duty.

There is no requirement for them to on or off duty, or to identify themselves as a police officer.

Question 2

Trevor is walking along the street when he sees Damian. The two of them dislike each other after Trevor used to bully Damian at school. Trevor walks up to Damian and says “I think I will punch you in the face like I used to do at school”. Trevor intends Damian to believe the threat and Damian does. Trevor does not though actually intend to hit Damian.

Has an assault occurred in these circumstances?

Answer 2

Yes, there is no requirement for physical contact.

Question 3

Amit writes a disturbing letter to Helen, who is 10 weeks pregnant. The letter describes how he will kill the child before it is born. Helen is understandably terrified at the letter and this was the intention of Amit. He wishes Helen to believe her baby will be killed. Amit, however, has no intention of murdering the child.

Has Amit committed an offence of Threat to Kill (s.16)?

Answer 3

No, a threat to kill an unborn child before it is born is not sufficient for this offence as an unborn child is not considered a ‘person’.

Question 4

Mr Patel is a dentist who has been suspended by the General Dentist Council owing to a serious complaint against them. Mr Patel disputing the suspension and complaint continues to treat his patients on a daily basis. He does not inform them as to his ‘problems’ and simply continues working as their dentist, in the job he has done for 20 years.

Which of the following statements is correct?

(a) Mr Patel has committed an assault as had the patients known of the suspension then they would likely not have consented to the work.
(b) Mr Patel has not committed an assault as he has not lied about his identity nor the work he was doing.
(c) Mr Patel has committed an assault as he has failed to inform them of the circumstances yet continued to practice.
(d) Mr Patel has not committed an assault as he is in dispute over the suspension and complaint and hence has the right to continue practicing.

Answer 4

Mr Patel has not committed an assault as he has not lied about his identity nor the work he was doing.

Question 5

Phil suffers from HIV and is aware of his diagnosis. He meets Emma in a pub and they start talking. They get on well and go on a couple of dates. On the third date, Emma invites Phil back to her flat for a drink and they decide to have sex. Emma consents to unprotected sex with Phil and he fails to disclose that he is HIV positive, Emma however never asks him if he has any STIs or other health issues she should be aware of.

Considering the offence of GBH (Section 20), had an offence been made out?

Answer 5

The offence of GBH (Section 20) is made out as he is aware that by having unprotected sex he will infect Emma.

Question 6

Granit and Pierre are playing in a football match when Granit makes a badly mistimed tackle. Pierre crashes to floor holding his leg. Granit knows that the tackle was mistimed, although it was unintentional and a mistake on his part. He is livid though that Pierre is making the most of it, so walks up to him and gives him a kick to the leg to get him up. The kick is hard enough to leave reddening and as such Granit is sent off.

Is he liable to assault?

Answer 6

Granit could be guilty of assault in relation to the second kick on Pierre. The first was a mistimed tackle of which Pierre consents that there is a risk off however the second is off the ball.

Question 7

Craig is balancing on a skate board in the skate park. He is atop of a high ramp and is wobbling. Then due to his balance he then falls onto Sam below, causing her injury.

Is he liable to assault?

Answer 7

No, Craig has not committed an assault because there was no deliberate or reckless act.

Question 8

Chris and Sian are deeply in love and live their life alongside their own mystical beliefs. Chris and Sian do not believe that their bodies should be touched by anyone else but wish to demonstrate their love by branding symbols on each other through the use of a hot sacred knife. Unfortunately Sian’s branding becomes infected and as such she sees the GP who in turn notifies the police as to what has happened.

Do they have a defence of consent?

Answer 8

Sian and Chris can consent to this mutual branding and it is not a matter for the police.

Question 9

Ben has the HIV virus. He has sex with Beth whose idea it is to not use a condom. She is unaware of his condition. As a result Beth contracts HIV.

Has Ben committed a s20 GBH?

Answer 9

Yes, in these circumstances the offence is made out.

Question 10

Carlos is a store Detective working in a local supermarket. He watches as Dennis, a customer places a tin of beans into his plastic bag and walks out of the store. Carlos approaches Dennis and challenges him outside for stealing the beans. Dennis tells him to ‘piss off, im allowed to’ and starts to walk off. Carlos detains Dennis and tells him he is arresting him for theft and is calling the police. Dennis punches Carlos in the face but is eventually detained. The police arrive and the cashier runs out stating that she gave permission for Dennis to change the can of beans as they were dented.

Considering the offence of Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest (s.38), is Dennis guilty of an offence?

Answer 10

Dennis is guilty of the offence as he has assaulted Carlos.

Question 11

Paul and Rob are having an argument over a football match. Paul punches Rob to the face, Rob says “Why did you do that?” and Paul replies using a racial slur and confirms the reason for the assault was Rob’s ethnicity.

Has Paul committed racially aggravated assault?

Answer 11

Yes, the racial slur was immediately after committing the offence.

Racial hostility can be demonstrated towards the victim at the time, immediately before or immediately after the offence has been committed.

Question 12

Tommy is in an argument with Michael and produces an imitation pistol. The imitation pistol does not work but looks convincing. Tommy knows the gun is an imitation. Tommy points it at Michael who immediately fears he will be shot and puts his hands in the air.

Has an assault occurred in these circumstances?

Answer 12

Yes, Michael apprehends that he will be shot.

Question 13

Harry is playing rugby when he is tackled by Steve, it is fair but hard. Harry loses a tooth during the tackle and is angry. He waits until Steve gets the ball and deliberately high kicks him causing extensive bruising on his face. The referee sends Harry off.

Who has committed Assault (ABH)?

Answer 13

Harry, when he deliberately high kicks Steve.

Question 14

Pete throws a coin at Lilly, with the intention that it would cause a small cut to her face. The coin hits Lilly as intended but hits him in his eye causing loss of sight.

Is Pete liable for the offence of GBH?

Answer 14

Yes he is liable. It doesn’t matter that Pete only foresaw minor harm.

Question 15

John sends Alan a letter with the word ‘death’ on it and stains it with animals blood. Alan receives the letter and is terrified and takes it as a threat to kill. John intended him to take it this way although has no intention of doing anything else.

Has John committed a Threat to Kill (s.16)?

Answer 15

Yes, John needs to intend Alan would fear he would be killed.

Question 16

Mari is 20 years old ad babysitting Ella-May who is 9 years old. Ella-May is acting extremely naughtily and keeps running into the kitchen and turning the gas on. Mari is concerned that this could cause a fire and Ella-May could hurt herself. Ella-May does this on three occasions and after each occasion Mari uses sterner words. On the fourth occasion Mari says, enough is enough and smacks Ella-May on the wrist leaving a red mark. Ella-May cries and does not do it anymore. Ella-May’s parents come home and on hearing what has happened shout at Mari that she has assaulted their child.

Does Mari have a defence in these circumstances?

Answer 16

Yes, Mari is acting loco parentis and there has the defence of lawful chastisement in the circumstances.

Firstly there is no defence of lawful chastisement if the person is charged with ABH (Section 47) or above, it is only there if they are charged with common assault. It can be used by those acting loco parentis but the injury must be trifling. Mari’s actions are clearly reasonable in the circumstances.

Question 17

Jim and Pat are arguing in the street. Jim tells Pat, ‘I’m going to smash you in the face right after I’ve posted my letter’. Jim then walks to the post box 30 meters away.

Has an assault been committed in these circumstances?

Answer 17

Yes, the fear of force is immediate.

A minute or two has been held to suffice to constitute ‘immediate’. More distant future would not suffice. They must fear force not simply more words or silence.

Question 18

Peter is obsessed with his neighbour Michelle. He decides to call her up and simply say the words ‘coming for you’ on the phone before breathing heavily. He does this in the hope she will come to him and he can comfort her. Michelle is terrified and believes these words mean she is going to be attacked in some manner.

Has an assault taken place?

Answer 18

Yes, Michelle fears immediate unlawful violence in some form.

If we deal with the words first, we know that words (and silence) can amount to an assault. In this case Peter is doing this to elicit a response from Michelle. Michelle believes that unlawful violence will be used, it is irrelevant that she knows what is being threatened only that she will be subject to violence.

Question 19

Olivia is babysitting Charles. During the evening she has cause to smack Charles causing transient reddening of the skin..

Which of the following is correct in relation to this?

(a) Olivia could be charged with assault as she only has loco parentis by virtue of her babysitting role and could not claim lawful chastisement.
(b) Olivia could be charged with assault even though she has loco parentis by virtue of her babysitting role but she could claim lawful chastisement.
(c) Olivia could not be charged with assault as the level of injury requires more than transient at most.
(d) Olivia could not be charged with assault as the level of injury requires more than reddening of the skin.

Answer 19

Olivia could be charged with assault even though she has loco parentis by virtue of her babysitting role but she could claim lawful chastisement.

Question 20

PC White is searching Jude, a known drug user in custody. PC Harris asks Jude whether she has anything on her person that will cause harm her during the search. Jude answers that she has nothing on her. As PC White is searching, she feels a slight scratch on her hand and on removing it realises that she has been pricked by an uncapped hypodermic needle. PC White is checked out medically and cleared.

Considering the offence of Common Assault which of the following statements is correct?

(a) The offence is not made out as the assault is classified as ‘indirect’ and Jude has not undertaken any action required.
(b) The offence is made out as long as PC White can show that the search was conducted correctly (including pat down).
(c) Jude has falsely assured PC White that she had no needles on her, therefore the offence is made out.
(d) The offence is not made out as the ‘pricking of a needle’ with or without further complications (health issues) will be ABH at its lowest level

Answer 20

(c) Jude has falsely assured PC White that she had no needles on her, therefore the offence is made out.

Question 21

Tim finds out his wife has been having an affair so he confronts her in the park one day. He finds her lover Andy who confirms the affair. Tim walks towards his wife and punches her in the face. Fearing he would be next, Andy runs away.

Which of the following is correct?

(a) Tim has committed a battery on his wife and also assaulted Tim.
(b) Tim has committed an assault on his wife only.
(c) No assault has taken place.
(d) Time has only committed an assault against Tim.

Answer 21

Tim has committed a battery on his wife and also assaulted Tim.

Question 22

Steve and Alison have an argument. As Alison is sat on the couch, Steve goes to the kitchen and gets kitchen knife. He grabs Alison’s ponytail and swiftly cuts it off.

Has he committed Assault Occasioning ABH?

Answer 22

Yes, ABH has been held to include deliberately cutting someone’s hair.

Question 23

Dr Field a local GP has been struck off and is no longer licensed to practice medicine. He continues however to treat patients who are content with the service he is providing.

Are the patients consenting to any assault that may occur as a result of his treatment?

Answer 23

Yes, there is consent in these circumstances.

Question 24

Paddy and Michael are two of the best bare knuckle boxers in the south of England. A fight is set up to see who the best fighter is. Like a professional fight both men meet beforehand and stand face to face for the crowd. The fight takes place at a secret location in Wiltshire and after three gruelling rounds Michael is knocked unconscious. Paddy is declared the winner and crowned the best in Southern England. Michael congratulates his opponent when he comes round.

Can consent be given?

Answer 24

The event is a bare knuckle fight and therefore unauthorised, neither fighter can consent to causing harm in the circumstances.

Question 25

John encourages James to assault Tim who is sat with Rob in a pub garden. James instead intentionally assaults Robert instead by punching him in the face breaking his nose.

Is John liable for the injuries caused to Robert?

Answer 25

No, he is not liable

Question 26

Bruce teaches martial arts at the local school, a local father Paul is jealous of Bruce and does not like him. Paul sees Bruce in a local park and walks up to him, he puts up his fists and says “Let’s dance”. Bruce laughs and does not fear Paul but takes up a defensive martial arts stance as he believes Paul will throw a punch.

Has an assault taken place?

Answer 26

Yes, Bruce does not need to fear only apprehend that Paul will hit him.

Question 27

Colin is the father to Elizabeth. Elizabeth has come home crying saying that her boyfriend Eddie has been horrible to her. Colin has been drinking and has a dislike for Eddie. Colin storms down to Eddie’s house and stands outside with a baseball bat. Colin shouts “You come out here right now Eddie, I’m gonna teach you a lesson for making my baby cry”. Eddie looks out the window and is frightened that Colin is going to seriously injure him with a baseball bat. He says nothing and locks the door hoping Colin will go away.

Has Colin committed an assault?

Answer 27

Yes, Colin is guilty of an assault regardless that Eddie is locked in his house.

Question 28

It is Halloween and Steve is planning a prank on his friend Gary. Steve is aware that Gary is terrified of spiders (arachnophobia) and that his other friend Tony has a collection of spiders. Steve invites Gary over to Tony’s house to watch some horror movies. As Gary arrives he finds the house in darkness but decides to go in anyway. He walks into the lounge and bumps into what he thinks is a table. Steve turns the lights on and Gary finds himself surrounded by live spiders. Panicked and fearful, Gary runs out of the house.

Considering the offence of Assault by ABH which of the following statements is correct?

Answer 28

The offence is not made out as psychiatric injury must be more than fear, distress and panic.

The fact it is a prank is irrelevant.

Question 29

Kelly is walking her dog when she is set upon by two girls, called Sandra and Grace. A fight breaks about between them over a boyfriend. It culminates in Sandra and Grace overpowering Kelly. Sandra holds Kelly’s arm up her back keeping her in place whilst Grace uses a key to carve the letter ‘G’ into her cheek, causing a 4cm laceration that would leave a scar.

Which of the following is correct?

Answer 29

Sandra and Grace are both guilty of GBH (Section 20)

They are both guilty of Section 20 GBH as this is a very nasty and permanent assault. This mirrors the case of R v Marsh (2011) where they were both charged with Section 20.

The question has come up as to why they were not charged with Section 18, as the intent was there, however the decision was to convict them of Section 20 and that is what was is recorded as case law.

Question 30

Jean is in a neighbourly dispute with Mary. Jean sees Mary in her garden one day and decides to teach her a lesson by throwing a stone at Mary while her back is turned. The stone misses.

Has an assault taken place?

Answer 30

No, as Mary did not apprehend immediate unlawful violence.

Question 31

Reggie is in a dispute with Larry. Reggie decides to scare Larry by pulling a gun on him in a pub. It’s not a real gun, it’s a replica. Larry however suspects Reggie is about to shoot him, so he runs out screaming.

Has an assault taken place in these circumstances?

Answer 31

No, as Larry merely suspects he is going to subjected to immediate unlawful violence.

Question 32

Lionel is physically abusive of his wife Stella. He enjoys nothing more than watching her suffer. One day Lionel is out walking when he finds some mushrooms, being a biologist he knows that these mushrooms if consumed would make someone sick, although they are unlikely to be fatal unless in a big enough dose. Lionel takes the mushroom home and brews them into a drink. His wife Stella returns home and he hands her the drink, he tells her that he has made this for her and to drink it. Stella knows that it is likely to make her sick and this is confirmed by Lionel but being scared she drinks it anyway.

Considering the offence of Poisoning (Sections 23 and 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861) has Lionel committed an offence?

Answer 32

Lionel has committed the offence as it he is causing it to be taken by the other person and is going to make Stella sick.

He has unlawfully and maliciously caused to administered poison, aware that it will injure. This includes a person consuming themselves even if they are aware of what is contained. It can be as low as to annoy any such person.

Question 33

Mustafa approaches Nicholas in the street. Mustafa knows Nicholas and some unknown reason has always disliked him. Mustafa leans closely and says “Your time has come Nicholas, you punishment will be delivered through me, you will suffer unimaginable pain”. Nicholas collapses on the floor with shock and starts shaking, beyond terrified at what Mustafa has said.

Considering Assault occasioning ABH (Sect 47) what offence has been committed?

Answer 33

Mustafa is guilty of ABH as Nicholas has clearly suffered shock at the threats made.

Psychological harm including shock is included as ABH but the psychological harm must be greater than simply fear, distress and panic. Where psychological harm is not accepted by the defendant, then expert opinion must be sought.

Question 34

Kieran is mucking about outside a pub, he picks up three pint glasses and tells people that he is going to juggle with them. He throws them up in the air and one hits the arm of his friend Kelly, cutting it.

Is Kieran guilty of ABH?

Answer 34

Yes, although he didn’t mean it to happen, he was clearly reckless.

A person who assaults another person and causes actual bodily harm whether intentionally or reckless. Kieran, knew that by throwing glasses up in the air, that there were risks associated. It is not a defence that it is an accident, it is mitigation that he didn’t mean it to happen but he would be hard pressed to argue that there were no risks.

Question 35

Rachel is holding her baby, when Tracy approaches her. Tracy throws a punch only slightly catching Rachel’s chin, slightly reddening it but causing her to drop the baby. Luckily the baby is unharmed except for some reddening on its bottom.

What offence/s have been committed?

Answer 35

Tracy is guilty of battery against both Rachel and the baby.

Force can be direct, as can be seen in punching Rachel or indirectly with the baby falling and hitting its bottom. The above is the circumstances of case law Haystead v CC of Derbyshire 2000.

Question 36

Gary hates the local police and specifically hates officers enforcing speeding. He is on his way home when he sees the local police doing speed checks. He drives around the corner flashing his lights at the next two cars. The first is being driven by Ethel who has never gone above the speed limit in his life and although recognises the flashing ignores it. Terry behind though was just about to overtake Ethel and definitely exceed the speed limit where the police are, he changes his mind about this.

Which of the following is correct in relation to Obstruct Police – Police Act, s.89?

(a) Gary commits the offence in the circumstances for warning both Ethel and Terry.
(b) Gary only commits the offence in relation to Terry.
(c) Gary only commits the offence in relation to Ethel.
(d) Gary does not commit the offence, as simply flashing your lights at other road users warning them of a speed trap is not deemed enough for obstruction.

Answer 36

Gary only commits the offence in relation to Terry.

Strangely enough, he only commits it in relation to Terry. That is because it only counts towards warning those speeding or planning to speed. Ethel is doing neither so no offence in relation to her (R v Glendinning 2005).

Obstructing can also be providing misleading information intentionally (Ledger v DPP) and tipping people off about to commit an offence (Green v Moore 1982).