Common Assault: Assault and Battery Flashcards
(14 cards)
Which of the following best describes the actus reus of assault?
A. The application of force causing actual bodily harm
B. Causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
C. Intentionally causing injury to another
D. Unlawfully touching another person with intent
B. Causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
Explanation: Assault is committed when a person causes another to anticipate immediate unlawful force, even if no physical contact occurs (R v Ireland).
Which of the following could amount to battery?
A. Shouting abuse across a street
B. A silent phone call
C. Raising a fist without contact
D. Unwanted physical contact such as tapping someone on the shoulder
D. Unwanted physical contact such as tapping someone on the shoulder
Explanation: Battery involves the unlawful application of force. Even minimal or unwanted contact, such as tapping someone without consent, can be sufficient (Collins v Wilcock).
What mens rea is required for battery?
A. Intention only
B. Negligence
C. Intention or recklessness
D. Specific intent only
C. Intention or recklessness
Explanation: Battery is a basic intent offence. The defendant must either intend or subjectively foresee (be reckless as to) the application of unlawful force (R v Venna).
Which of the following would not be sufficient to constitute the actus reus of assault?
A. Raising a fist at someone
B. Silent telephone calls
C. Telling someone, “If it weren’t assize time, I’d hurt you”
D. Shouting “I’ll punch you” while walking aggressively toward the person
C. Telling someone, “If it weren’t assize time, I’d hurt you”
Explanation: In Tuberville v Savage, the words negated the threat of violence, showing there was no immediate danger and therefore no assault.
Tom raises a fist at Amy and steps towards her as if to punch her, but he does not make contact. Amy believes she will be hit. Which offence has likely been committed?
A. Battery
B. Assault
C. ABH
D. None
B. Assault
Explanation: Assault occurs when a victim apprehends immediate unlawful force — no contact is required. Amy reasonably believed a punch was imminent.
Ella brushes past Sam at a crowded train station and makes slight, unintentional contact with his arm. He turns and complains. Which of the following applies?
A. She has committed battery
B. She has committed assault
C. Her action is likely covered by implied consent
D. She has committed ABH
C. Her action is likely covered by implied consent
Explanation: Everyday contact in crowded public spaces is usually covered by implied consent, and is therefore not unlawful (Collins v Wilcock).
Jack pours water on Mary’s head as a prank. She is shocked but not injured. What offence may Jack have committed?
A. Assault
B. Battery
C. GBH
D. No offence
B. Battery
Explanation: Pouring water involves physical contact without consent, constituting a battery regardless of the absence of injury.
Chris calls Jane silently, repeatedly, causing her severe anxiety about an imminent attack. Which offence may apply?
A. Assault
B. Battery
C. Public order offence
D. Harassment only
A. Assault
Explanation: Repeated silent calls causing apprehension of immediate harm can amount to assault (R v Ireland).
Mia places acid in a hand-dryer intending to retrieve it later, but another student uses the dryer and is burned. Mia did not intend to harm that person. What is the most accurate legal position?
A. This is an assault
B. This is not an offence — there was no intent
C. This is gross negligence
D. This may constitute battery through indirect force
D. This may constitute battery through indirect force
Explanation: Although no direct contact occurred, Mia’s act created a situation where unlawful force was applied indirectly. Battery can be committed through such indirect means (DPP v K).
Sam approaches Leah and yells “I’m going to punch you!” but then immediately says “but not today.” Leah is frightened. What offence, if any, has occurred?
A. Assault
B. No offence
C. Battery
D. Attempted ABH
A. Assault
Explanation: Even if the threat is later retracted, Leah may still reasonably apprehend immediate unlawful force — satisfying the actus reus of assault (R v Logdon).
A police officer grabs Tina’s wrist to stop her from walking away without having lawful authority to detain her. Tina resists. Which of the following applies?
A. No offence — implied consent applies
B. The officer committed battery
C. Tina committed battery
D. This is lawful contact
B. The officer committed battery
Explanation: Without lawful authority or consent, even minimal physical contact by a police officer can be a battery (Collins v Wilcock).
Liam intentionally throws a stone toward Max. It misses Max but causes Max to jump back in fear. What offence is this?
A. Battery
B. Attempted battery
C. No offence
D. Assault
D. Assault
Explanation: Liam caused Max to apprehend immediate and unlawful force, even though no contact occurred. This fits the definition of assault under common law (R v Logdon).
Can battery be committed by omission?
A. No — battery always requires a physical act
B. Only if the victim is injured severely
C. Only where the defendant intended serious harm
D. Yes — if the defendant creates a danger and fails to act
D. Yes — if the defendant creates a danger and fails to act
Explanation: In DPP v Santana-Bermudez, a defendant who denied having needles exposed an officer to risk. His omission (failure to warn) after creating a danger constituted the actus reus of battery.
Does the force used in battery need to be hostile or aggressive?
A. Yes — battery must include aggression
B. Yes — but only if the contact causes injury
C. No — all battery must be rude or threatening
D. No — battery can be any unwanted touching, even if not hostile
D. No — battery can be any unwanted touching, even if not hostile
Explanation: In Faulkner v Talbot, the court confirmed that battery does not require hostility. Any intentional or reckless unwanted touching, even gentle or non-aggressive, may be sufficient.
