Assault

Question 1

What are thee two ways of committing common assault? (2)

Answer 1

-assault
-battery.

Question 2

What are both battery and assaut convictions charged under? (1)

Answer 2

S39 criminal justice act 1988

Question 3

What is the maximum punishment for both assault and battery? (2)

Answer 3

-6 months imprisonment
-£5,000 fine
-or both

Question 4

Define assault. (1)

Answer 4

An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force with either an intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused.

Question 5

What words come under the actus reus of assault? (5)

Answer 5

-‘cause’
-‘apprehend’
-‘immediate’
-‘unlawful’
-‘force’

Question 6

Describe the meaning of ‘an act’ in terms of the assault actus reus. (2)

Answer 6

-an assaut requires some acts or words. (Omission is no sufficient to constitute assault).
-can be in the form of words or silent telephone calls.

Question 7

What case can be used to show the meaning of ‘an act’, in terms of the actus reus for assault? (2)

Answer 7

R v Constanza (1997) threatening letters and phone calls to the victim (800)

R v Ireland (1997) silent telephone calls to the victim.

Question 8

What did R v Nelson (2013) say in terms of ‘cause’ for the actus reus of assault?

Answer 8

‘What is required for the common assault is for the defendant to have done something of a physical kind which causes someone else to apprehend that they are about to be struck’

Question 9

What is meant by ‘apprehend’ in terms of the actus reus for assault?

Answer 9

The victim must apprehend that immediate force is going to be used against them, no assault where it is obvious that the defendant cannot actually use force.

Question 10

What cases can be used to show ‘apprehend’ in terms of the actus reus of assault? (2)

Answer 10

R v Lamb (1967) pointed unloaded gun at someone who knows its loaded is not assault as they do not apprehend force.

Logdon v DPP (1976) D showed V a gun that he knew was unloaded by the V didn’t and threatened to take her hostage, conviction for assault was upheld because the victim apprehended force.

Question 11

What is meant by ‘immediate’ in terms of the actus for assault? (1)

Answer 11

‘Immediate does not mean instantaneous but imminent.

Question 12

What cases show ‘immediate’ in terms of the actus reus for assault? (2)

Answer 12

Smith v chief superintendent of Woking police station (1983) D broke into a garden and watched through Vs window, V was terrified and thought d was doing to enter the room, no attack could be made at that moment but the victim was frightened by his conduct, fear of what he might do next was sufficiently immediate for the purposes of the offence.

Question 13

What may prevent an act of assault? (1)

Answer 13

Words indicating that there will be no violence may prevent an act of being assault. Tuberville v savage (1669).

Question 14

What occurred in tuberville v savage (1669)? (2)

Answer 14

The defendant placed on hand on his sword and said, ‘if it were not assize time, i would not take such language from you’ held not to be assault because he was not going to do anything.

Question 15

When may an act be considered assault even if the defendant has given verbalisation that they will not do something? (1)

Answer 15

When the victim fears that force is going to be used in the circumstances words were not enough to negate that fear.
R v Light (1857)

Question 16

What occurred in R v Light (1857)? (2)

Answer 16

The defendant raised his sword above he head of his wife and said ‘were it o for the bloody policeman outside, i would split your head open’ held that this was assault because the wife feared that force was going to be used on her.

Question 17

What is meant by ‘force’ in terms of the actus reus of assault? (2)

Answer 17

-thee force which is threatened must be unlawful, if it is lawful then there is no assault.
Can be any unwanted physical touching.

Question 18

What cases can be used for ‘force’ for the actus reus of assault? (3)

Answer 18

R v Ireland (1997)
R v Coonstanza (1997)
R v Barstow (1997)

Question 19

What is the men’s Rea of assault? (2)

Answer 19

‘Intention’
‘Recklessness’

Question 20

What is meant by ‘intention’ for the mens rea of assault? (2)

Answer 20

Is always direct intention- ‘aim, purpose and desire’
As defined in Mohan (1975)

Question 21

What was said in Mohan (1975)? (1)

Answer 21

‘A decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power (the prohibited consequence), no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not’

Question 22

What is meant by ‘recklessness’ in terms of the men’s Rea of assault? (2)

Answer 22

Is subjective recklessness ‘sees risk and unreasonably takes it’ Cunningham (1957)

Question 23

What case can be used to show liability for actions when the defendant is drunk? (1)

Answer 23

Majewski (1976)

Question 24

What case shows how subjective recklessness is sufficient for the mens rea of assault? (1)

Answer 24

R v Savage and Parmenter (1992)

Question 25

What occurred in the case of R v Savage and parmenter (1992)? (1)

Answer 25

‘Amongst other key rulings these to heard appeals decided that Cunningham subjective recklessness applies to non-fatal offences against the person’

Question 26

What case shows how both intention and subjective recklessness are sufficient for the mens rea of assault?(1)

Answer 26

R v Venna (1975)

Question 27

What occurred in the case of R v Venna (1975)? (2)

Answer 27

‘The offence of assault/battery is satisfied by proof that the defendant intentionally or recklessly applied force to the person of another’ D broke bone in an officers hand while resisting arrest.

Question 28

What is the structure of a 10 marker for the application of assault? (9)

Answer 28

1. Introduction
2. Definition of assault
3. Application of ‘cause’
4. Application of ‘apprehend’
5. Application of ‘immediate’
6. Application of ‘unlawful’
7. Application of ‘force’
8. Application of mens Rea
9. Conclude

Question 29

Define battery. (1)

Answer 29

The application of unlawful force to another person intending to apply unlawful physical force to another or recklessness as to whether unlawful force is applied.

Question 30

What is the actus reus of battery? (4)

Answer 30

-‘application’
-‘unlawful’
-‘force’
-‘another person’

Question 31

What is meant by ‘application’ in terms of the actus reus for battery? (2)

Answer 31

Are 2 types; indirect- causing something else to come into contact with the victim.
Direct- sin to skin contact

Question 32

What cases show ‘indirect battery’? (3)

Answer 32

R v martin (1881)
DPP v K (1990)
Haystead v chief constable of Derbyshire (2000)

Question 33

What occurred in the case of DPP v K (1990)? (3)

Answer 33

D took sulphuric acid (without permission) when he was caught he hid it within the school hand dryes, without prior knowledge the school girl who used it got sprayed with the acid. Was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.magistrates aqquidated but was upheld on appeal to the QBD on the account that battery could be committed via an in direct act.

Question 34

What case shows that battery can be committed via omission? (1)

Answer 34

DPP v Santana Bermudez (2003)

Question 35

What is seen as a ‘lawful’ force? (4)

Answer 35

-consent- including the everyday jostling of life
-self defence- cannot be charged on thee account of defending themselves
-prevention of crime- stopping someone who is trying to commit a crime
-moderate and reasonable chastisement- s58 children’s act 2004

Question 36

What act shows the unlawful act of slightest of touch? (1)

Answer 36

Collins v Wilcock (1984)

Question 37

What occurred in Collins v wilcock (1984)? (3)

Answer 37

Police officers saw two women to prevent soliciting purposes on the street, asked the appellant to get in the car for questioning,she refused and tried o walk away multiple times even after being told to do so. One police officer went to grab her arm to prevent her from leaving and she became abusive and scratched him. Convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, she appealed and it as held that the officer committed battery as the defendant was entitled to free herself.

Question 38

What case shows the lawful act of moderate and reasonable chastisement? (1)

Answer 38

A v UK (1998)

Question 39

What did the case of Faulkner v DPP (2008) decide about ‘force’ in terms of the actus reus of battery? (1)

Answer 39

‘Any intentional (or reckless) touching of another person without the consent of that person without lawful excuse. It need not be necessarily hostile, rude or aggressive’

Question 40

What cases show how the merest f touch can still be classified as battery? (2)

Answer 40

Collins v Wilcock (1984)
Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008)

Question 41

What cases show that even tugging on someone’s clothing can be battery? (1)

Answer 41

R v Thomas (1985)

Question 42

What is meant by ‘any person’ in terms of the actus reus of battery? (1)

Answer 42

At person, intended victim or actual victim )principle of transferred malice.

Question 43

What cases show ‘another person’ in terms of the actus reus for battery? (3)

Answer 43

Latimer (1885)
Mitchell (1983)
Peblington

Question 44

What is the mens Rea of battery? (2)

Answer 44

-‘intention’
-‘recklessness’

Question 45

What is meant by ‘intention’ in terms of the actus reus for battery? (1)

Answer 45

Intention to apply unlawful force - r v Vienna (1975)

Question 46

What is meant by ‘recklessness” in terms of the men’s Rea of battery? (1)

Answer 46

Recklessness to apply unlawful force (continuing act)- majewski (1976)

Question 47

What is the structure of a 10 marker for application of battery? (8)

Answer 47

1. Introduction
2. Definition of battery
3. Application of ‘application’
4. Application of ‘unlawful’
5. Application of ‘force’
6. Application of transferred malice (if applicable)
7. Application of men’s Rea
8. Conclusion