Assault

Question 1

What is S.39 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1988’s definition of Assault ?

Answer 1

“An act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force with either an intention to cause another to fear immediate, unlawful personal violence as to whether such fear is caused”

Question 2

What is the Actus Reus of Assault ?

Answer 2

1) An act: - Includes actions, written words, indirect threats, silence and continuous acts.
2) Causes the victim to apprehend: - No fear means no assault, no victim must fear the force
3) Immediate: - Victim’s fear must be that the force could be used against them immediately.
4) ; - Unlawful Force

Question 3

What is the Mens Rea of Assault ?

Answer 3

1) Intention to cause the victim to apprehend immediate, unlawful force.
2) Recklessness to cause the victim to apprehend immediate, unlawful force

Question 4

First Requirement of the Actus Reus of Assault: - An Act

Answer 4

• Actions: - Logdon v DPP (1976)
• Silence: - R v Ireland (1997)
• Indirect Threats: - R v Dume (1986)
• Written Words: - R v Constanza (1998)
• Continuous Acts: - Fagan v MPC (1969)

Question 5

Second Requirement of the Actus Reus of Assault: - Causes the victim to apprehend

Answer 5

• No fear means no assault: - (R v Lamb 1967)

- The victim must fear actual force: - (Smith v Chief Constable of Woking 1983)

Question 6

Third Requirement of the Actus Reus of Assault: Immediate

Answer 6

This means that the victim’s fear must be that the force could be used against them immediately.

Question 7

What happened in the case of Smith v Chief Constable of Woking (1983) ?

Answer 7

Facts: -

• V identified D a stranger who stood in her garden late at night staring through her window.
• V was terrified despite the doors were being locked so D couldn’t get to her.
• V did not move or run away when she screamed

Outcome: -

D found guilty - V feared immediate force. Didn’t matter that the doors were locked as it was plausible for the V to think he could find a way.

Question 8

Mens Rea of Assault: - What was demonstrated in the cases of R v Cunningham (1957) and Wilson v Pringle ?

Answer 8

R v Cunningham (1957):- Confirmed the test for recklessness is subjective

Wilson v Pringle: - Implied consent to the ordinary ‘jostling’ of everyday life

Question 9

Mens Rea of Assault: - What did s.3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 state ?

Answer 9

Application of force in situations of self-defence are lawful

Question 10

Mens Rea of Assault: - What is meant by Applicaton ?

Answer 10

Done by an omission: - DPP vs Santana Berumdez 2003

Can be a continuous act: - Fagan vs MPC (1969)

Can be done indirectly: - DPP v K (1990) and R v Martin (1981)

Question 11

Mens Rea of Assault: - What is mean by Force

Answer 11

Includes touching clothing : - Faulkner v Talbot (1981) and R v Thomas

Includes any unlawful contact, even by a police officer: - DPP v Santana Bermudez (2003) and Collins v Willcock