Assault Flashcards
Assault
AR - an intentional attack upon the person of another; MR - evil intention to attack injure harm; RECKLESSNESS is not an appropriate form of mens rea per assault; trasnfered intent
Roberts v Hamilton 1989
The accused tried to strike a man with a pole. However she missed and in the end struck a man named Crawford. She was convicted of assault. The doctrine of transferred intent apply (assault) before Hume only culpable homicide and murder
Atkinson v HMA 1987
The accused actions were held to amount to assault. In the shop wearing a mask. Tried to get to cash register, causing fear to the shopkeeper. It was held in this case, that the fear caused was enough to amount to a conviction
Mackenzie v HMA 1983
Fight going on, The accused produced the knife and told his opponent to fuck off. Court held that in this situation, the physical threat posed by the knife was not enough to amount yo a conviction given that those words could be constituted as trying to stop the fight. Appeal againf conviction and sentence, (culpable homicide)
LA Reference (No 2 of 1992) 1993 JC 43
where a person posses the AR and MR of assault or any crime they have committed a crime, whether or not it was a joke; clarified the definition of evil intent = acting deliberately. (Evil intention is thus inferred from a deliberate (intentional) act)
Gilmour v McGlennan 1993
G appealed against conviction on a reduced charge of assault where he had presented a toy handgun with a shiny metallic appearance at the complainer and had said “Gie me your money or I’ll shoot you”, it being argued for G that he had done this as a joke, that in the circumstances no reasonable person could have been alarmed by what had occurred, and that it was not clear that G had known that what he had been doing would be likely to cause alarm and distress, as required in Lord Advocate’s Reference (No.2 of 1992) (Defence: Joke) 1993 J.C. 43, [1992] 10 WLUK 299.
Held, appeal refused. Although an allegation of attempted robbery had been removed from the charge, the sheriff had been entitled to have regard to the whole evidence in the case. The presenting of a toy gun was undoubtedly a threatening gesture which had produced fear and alarm in the complainer. An assault was capable of taking place even against a background of good-natured joking, where the accused had acted deliberately (Lord Advocate’s Reference No.2).
the question of reasonable fear,However it was not settled so that the question remains whether may persons overreaction to for example set a practical joke may still give rise to accusation of assault itself?
Aitken v Wood 1921
Injury needs to be slight ie bruising on the victim arms from where the accused has grabbed them. he was convicted, examination of the arms by medic without presence of accused. conviction quashed.
Quinn v Lees 1994
joke defence, accused had instructed a dog to fetch the victim. the court held that joke defense did not apply as a dog was unable to tell whether a person was joking or not. rather the dog had been trained to fetch ppl undertook this command.
Smith v Paton (unreported Dundee Sheriff Court June 1986)
plead guilty to attempted assault - had concealed razor blades in a postal packet designed to lacerate fingers of any who opened it
Wightman v Lees 2000
(citizen arrest)Case is around theft. The builders had not notice that the equipment had been stolen. However when he ran off the builders are chased him and caught him. The court held that in this case that citizen arrest was justified. As the builder has moral certainty that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime and importantly, that this moral certainty was not just based on suspicions but a reasonable belief.
Codona v Cardle 1989
(citizen arrest) The accused suspected that the complainer had in fact smashed a window at his property. He jump and perform a citizen arrest. in performing it the accused used so much force that he injured the complainer’s arm. The accused was initially convicted of assault. On appeal it was held that, although the accused is not necessarily need to have first hand knowledge that a person had committed a crime. the force that he has used in making citizen arrest was excessive. His conviction was upheld.
HMA v Phipps 1905
(mens rea) it was held that must contain evil intent to injure and do bodily harm. Two men discharged sporting guns at group of men they believed to be poaching salmon from father’s estate. One of alleged poachers hit in eye and seriously injured.
Jury instructed they could not convict of assault unless they found accused had intention to do bodily injury.
Actions which cause fear for safety sufficient for actus reus of assault, hence intention to cause such fear must form correlative mens rea.
Perhaps surprising decision of not guilty in this case based on belief that it was lawful to frighten off suspected poachers.
Smart v HMA 1975
“If there is an attack on the other person and it is done with evil intent, that is, intent to injure and do bodily harm..” (then the attack will amount to assault). Appellant and another man agree to have a “square go” during course of which appellant inflicted serious injuries on other party.
Jury directed that consent could not provide defence to assault, accused convicted.
On appeal: If there is an attack on another person and it is done with evil intent (i.e. intent to cause bodily harm), fact that person attacked was willing to undergo risk of injury does not preclude crime of assault. (Defence) Appellant and another man agree to have a “square go” during course of which appellant inflicted serious injuries on other party.
Jury directed that consent could not provide defence to assault, accused convicted.
On appeal: If there is an attack on another person and it is done with evil intent (i.e. intent to cause bodily harm), fact that person attacked was willing to undergo risk of injury does not preclude crime of assault.
Aggravated assault
assault to severe injury, assault to severe injury and permanent disfigurement / and danger of life etc. May be aggravated by the nature of victim, indecency, breach of trust, locus.;Offences (Aggravation by prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009;s 1 of the abusive behavior and sexual harm (Scotland) Act 2016
Defences
consent may be a complete defence; self - defence may be a complete defence., provocation as a mitigation but verbal provocation must be inflammatory abuse
