Chapter 12: Non-fatal Offences - Technical assault

Question 1

What are non-fatal offences?

Answer 1

Where a crime against a person is possible without resulting in death (non-fatal)

Can be by frightening or causing actual injury

Question 2

What are the 5 offences in this chapter?

Answer 2

1. Grievous bodily harm (serious)
2. Grievous bodily harm (normal)
3. Actual bodily harm (‘mild’)
4. Battery
5. Assault

Question 3

What are the respective statutes for each of the offences?

Answer 3

Grievous bodily harm (serious)

• Section 18 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861

Grievous bodily harm (normal)

• Section 20 OAPA 1861

Actual bodily harm (‘mild’)

• Section 47 OAPA 1861

Battery

• Section 39 CJA 1988

Assault

• Section 39 CJA 1988

Question 4

What is the overview/big picture for Technical Assault?

Answer 4

1. Summary offence
2. Basic intent crime
3. Intoxication - bad defence
4. Section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Question 5

What is an important thing to note about citing Technical Assault?

Answer 5

Heading must cite both - case law (Assault) and statute (Section 39 CJA 1988)

• Statute does not contain the AR and MR (Fagan v MPC [1968]; R v Ireland [1977]; R v Burstow [1977]; R v Constanza [1977])
• Case law does not contain the sentencing provisions

“Section 38 Criminal Justice Act 1988 - Assault”

Question 6

What is the sentencing/punishment for Assault?

Answer 6

• 6 months imprisonment
• Fine
• Both

Question 7

What is the definition for Assault? Case?

Answer 7

Fagan v MPC [1968]

• The causing of apprehension of immediate personal violence

Other cases

• R v Ireland [1977]
• R v Burstow [1977]
• R v Constanza [1977]

Question 8

What are the 5 elements of Assault?

Answer 8

AR

1. Positive Act
2. Apprehension
3. Immediate
4. Unlawful personal violence

MR

1. Intentionally causing fear of an immediate application of force or recklessly doing so

Question 9

What is a positive act? Can frightening someone constitute assault (case?)

Answer 9

Positive act

• Concious & voluntary movement of muscles
• Merely frightening a person is not sufficient. There has to be probability of application of force - Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police Station [1983]

Question 10

What are 5 different scenarios to note about positive acts in assault?

don’t talk about these unless question raises/talks about it

Answer 10

1. Words can be assault
2. Words can negate assault
3. Conditional assault
4. Assault wihtout D having means to carry out threat
5. Silent phone call

Question 11

Can words constitute assault? What case clarifies this?

Answer 11

R v Ireland

• It is now accepted, although before Ireland didn’t

Question 12

What case clarifies that words can negate assault?

Answer 12

Tuberville v Savage [1669]

Facts

1. D placed his hand on his sword and said “if it was not assize time, I would not have taken such language from you,”

Held

1. His words negated assault
2. Whether words amount to assault or not, words can negate assault

Question 13

Can conditional assault be an assault? What 2 cases that show this.

if victim does X, he threatens to do Y

Answer 13

If negation of assault is conditional on what the victim does, then there will still be assault (threat)

Balke v Barnard [1840]

• “I will blow your brains unless you…”

Read v Cocker

Question 14

What case states that ‘assault without D having means to carry out the threat’ is still assault

Answer 14

Stephen v Myres

Facts

1. D points an unloaded, imitation gun at V
2. V is not knowing that it was fake

Held

1. Still assault

Question 15

What 4 cases show silent phone calls are assault?

Answer 15

• R v Ireland [1997]
• R v Johnson [1996]
• R v Burstow [1977]
• R v Constanza [1977]

Question 16

R v Ireland [1997]

Answer 16

Facts

1. D made numerous phone calls to 3 women and remained silent
2. Women suffered psychological disorders requiring treatment
3. D argued his voice did not apprehend “immediate and unlawful violence”

Held

1. HOL held D was guilty of assault
2. On grounds that the call caused the V to apprehend immediate and possible personal violence

Question 17

What is ‘apprehension’? What there to note about it?

Answer 17

The victim must apprehend (anticipate) immediate personal violence

• Normally, apprehension will be explained in terms of being afraid, but that is not exactly correct (afraid doesn’t count)
• By apprehension, it means ‘anticipation of violence’
• Doesn’t necessarily mean that the person feared the violence

Question 18

What is the case for apprehension?

Answer 18

Logdon v DPP

Facts

1. D opened a drawer pointing the gun at the V
2. Threatened the victim hostage

Held

1. D convicted of assault

Takeaway

• As long as D anticipates violence
• The victim does not have to be “afraid” (even if he confident, it still is assault)

Question 19

What is the definition of ‘immediate’?
What are the 2 definitions/interpretations for it?

Answer 19

Broad/wider interpretation

• Imminent - in the nearest future

Narrow interpretation

Question 20

What are the 3 cases that show immediate (imminent) appehension

Answer 20

• Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police Station
• R v Ireland and Burstow [1998]
• R v Lewis

Question 21

Smith v Chief Constable of Woking Police Station

immediate - imminent apprehension

Answer 21

Facts

1. D frightening a woman who was dressed in her night-clothes
   Looking through her bedroom window
   Caused her to anticipate fear

Held

1. Held to be immediate, despite the fact the V could have escaped before even getting to her

Takeaway

• Courts gave a looser interpretation to ‘immediacy’
• Although the V could have taken preventative measures

Question 22

R v Ireland and Burstow [1998]

immediate

Answer 22

Lord Steyn

• Used the term “imminent”

Question 23

What is meant by ‘unlawful personal violence’?

Answer 23

The threat must be unlawful

Note

• A threat used in self-defence is not assault

Question 24

What case carifies ‘either intentionally causing fear of an immediate application of force or recklessly doing so’

Answer 24

R v Venna [1976]

• If D intends or is reckless to alarm his V, the MR requirement is satisfied (even if he doesn’t intend to carry it out)

Question 25

What is the distinction between intention and recklessness

Answer 25

Intention 1. Direct intent - **R v Woolin [1999]** 2. Oblique intent - **R v Woolin [1999]** 3. Foreseeability of risk - virtual certainty Recklessness 1. Subjective test - **R v Cunningham** 2. Objective test - **R v G & Another [2003]**