assault (tpttp) Flashcards
(12 cards)
definition of assault.
Defendant voluntarily does a positive act intending (or being subjectively recklessly so as) to cause the claimant to reasonably apprehend an immediate battery. (collins v wilcocks 1984)
what case supports the definition of assault.
collins v wilcocks 1984.
common features of the tort.
voluntarily- not be pushed or be caused by a spazm caused by a medical condition
intentionaly
subjectively reckless as to whether the act happens
are words spoken sufficient enough for a assault.
yes.
r v ireland 1998- ‘‘a thing said is a thing done’’
there is no reason why a thing said should be incapable of causing apprehension of immediate personal violence eg a man accosting a woman in a dark alley way saying if you dont come with me ill stab you.
r v wilson 1955- ‘‘get knives out’’
are silent phone calls enough for assault?
can be.
R v Ireland 1998
pure silence is an ommission this is not enough.
however, silence is an ommission but part of a broader independant duty to acy positivly. eg so as not to threaten v by making silent phone calls so may be enough.
telephone calls of this nature are just as capable of gestures or words said or made in the presence of a victim causing an apprehension of immediate and unlawful violence.
what belief must the claimant have?
subjective- c must actually believe that c is about to be subject to an immediate battery.
objective part- would a reasonable person in cs position have apprehended an immediate battery.
R v st George 1840.
gun pointed case.
does c reasonably believe that the gun is loaded does c reasonably believe thay force is about to be used. is cs belief objectivly reasonable.
what case suggests that claimant believes the force is about to be immediatly applied?
Thomas v national union of miners south wales area 1986.
here the crowd lacked the ability to immediately carry out its threats. claimant was protected inside the bus also there was police betweenthe bus and the crowds of striking minors.
what case suggests that the defendant needs to have the capacity to apply force immediatly.
read v coker 1853- defendant disarmmed themsevles before making the threat. places the cane on the table before making the threat.
can a belief be removed by a gesture
yes read v coker places the cane on the table then makes the threat ‘‘if you dont leave now ill hit you on the head’’.
can belief about being immediatly assaulted be removed by words?
yes, it may be possible thay through a reaosnable interpretation of the defendants words that force will not be applied immeditely. (Tuberville v savage 1669)
‘‘if it was not for assize for time i would not take such language from you’’
can giving a condition remove beliefs about immediacy of assault.
possible yes.
eg lawful conditions by bouncers ‘ if you do not leave now you will be forceably be removed’
unlawful condition eg R v Ireland ‘come with me or ill stab you’ this would not remove the immediacy of the threat and may enforce immedate apprehension.
