Assault Learning Objectives Define Assault Explain the Actus Reus and Mens Rea of assault Analyse case law on assault

“Common Assault” Assault and Battery are 2 separate offences One can be committed without the other Together they are called “common assault” Both common law offences But they are recognised in Statute - S.39 Criminal Justice Act – states they are both summary offences with a maximum sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment or a fine.

Assault - Definition Ireland – D intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence

Assault – Actus Reus An act Causing the victim To apprehend Immediate and Unlawful violence This means to satisfy the AR, we need to consider 5 separate points

1. Actus Reus – “An act” Cannot be an omission Can be actions, gestures, words or silence E.g. waving a knife, a gesture like running a finger across your throat Constanza – written words alone are enough for an assault – D stalked V and content of letters was an assault as V read them as threats – therefore other written communications like emails and texts can also constitute assault Ireland – words are enough for an assault Ireland – Silence can amount to an assault - silent telephone calls Tuberville v Savage – words can also prevent an assault if they indicate D is not intending to cause the harm

2. Actus Reus - “Cause” Apply usual rules of causation

3. Actus Reus - “Apprehend” No need for any physical contact between D and V – it is about what V thought was about to happen Don’t need fear – just apprehension – expectation or anticipation If V doesn’t apprehend immediate force, assault has not been committed - Lamb – if other person does not expect violence there can be no assault – 2 friends playing with a gun, one man shot by the other but no assault as the shot man had not appreciated that the gun would go off Doesn’t matter if D made his threat as a joke if V believed him – Logdon – D, as a joke, pointed a gun at V who was terrified until she was told that it was in fact a replica. Court held that V had apprehended physical violence

4. Actus Reus - “Immediate” Quite a wide interpretation of this Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station – “peeping Tom” looked through V’s bedroom window at night. She apprehended immediate and unlawful personal violence even though he was outside – immediate does not need to be instantaneous Ireland – Silent telephone calls - V held to be in fear of immediate personal violence as she could not know exactly where D was when making the phone-call

5. Actus Reus – “Unlawful Violence or force” V does not need to apprehend any injury, pain or harm Force apprehended can be a mere touch, provided it is unwanted Must be unlawful – usually due to lack of consent E.g. police officer threatening to handcuff someone or restrain them if they don’t co-operate is not assault

Mens Rea Matches the AR - DO NOT need to intend carrying out the actual violence – only making V apprehend it Savage: Intention to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence; or Recklessness as to whether the victim apprehends unlawful and immediate violence Can be direct or indirect (oblique) intent Recklessness is Cunningham recklessness – D must realise that his acts or words could cause V to apprehend violence

Answering Questions on Assault Was there an act? What was it? Did the act: Cause (normal causation rules) V to apprehend Immediate Unlawful violence/force? Was there intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence