Assault Flashcards
What section, act and year is Assault under?
s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
What is transferred malice?
Intent to harm somebody, however harms somebody else in the process instead.
What is the coincidence rule?
In order for an offence to take place, both the AR and MR must be present at the same time, this is known as the coincidence rule
What did Hill v Baxter outline?
with no actus reus, there is no offence Here the court provided examples of where a driver could be said not acting voluntarily:
- heart attack whilst driving +loss of control
- stung by a swarm of bees +loss of control
What is an omission?
an omission is a failure to act, this can lead to criminal liability when there is a duty to act
The Thin skull rule?
Take your victim as you find him (Blaue)
The Victims own Act?
The victims own act (Roberts)
Medical negligence?
Cheshire, Smith
Actions of a third party?
Pagett
What is the case for direct intention (mens rea)?
Mohan
What is the case for indirect intention?
Woolin
What is the case for recklessness?
Recklessness is subjective as in Cunningham
what is the ar of assualt?
‘any act which causes the victim to apprehend, immediate, unlawful personal violence’
what must the force for assualt AR be?
must be immediate, but this does not mean ‘instantaneous’ (Smith)
what is the factual cause test?
‘but for’ (Pagett)
how do you prove that the D is the legal cause?
this means they are the ‘operating and substantial’ cause (Smith)
what is the mr of assualt?
the D has the intention or recklessness to causing the victim to apprehend immediate infliction of unlawful personal violence
what is direct intent?
this is when it is the D’s ‘main aim and purpose to bring a consequence’ (Mohan)
what is indirect intent?
this is when the D ‘did not intend to bring about the consequence, but it was virtually certain to occur as a consequence of his/her actions’. The D must appreciate this and this is evidence from which the jury can find intent
Assualt scaffold
In relation to D’s liability to V, they would be liable for assault under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The actus reus of assault is ‘any act which causes the victim apprehend, immediate, unlawful personal violence’. The victim must apprehend the force (Logdon). The force must be immediate, but immediate does not mean ‘instantaneous’ (Smith v Woking Police Station) and personal force must be unlawful i.e. no consent, but there does not need to be physical contact (Ireland).
In this scenario the victim apprehended when…
There was/was not immediacy when…
… would amount to unlawful personal violence.
It must be proven that…(Defendant) is the factual cause of the assault. In this scenario, ‘but for’ (Pagett/ White) the defendants actions the V would/would not have suffered an assault.
It must also be proven that… (Defendant) is the legal cause, this means that they are ‘operating and substantial’ cause (Smith). This means there must be no intervening acts which break the chain of causation, such as: medical negligence (Cheshire/Smith), victims own act (Roberts) and third party act (Pagett). The thin skull rule never breaks the chain of causation, because the victim is taken as they come (Blaue).
In this scenario (discuss any of the above if they are present). (Is the chain of causation broken).
If there are no intervening acts, then the chain is not broken and … (Defendant) is the operating and substantial cause.
The mens rea of assault is defendent has the intention or recklessness to causing the victim to apprehend an immediate infliction of unlawful personal violence. This intent can either direct (Mohan) or indirect (Woolin) intent. Recklessness is subjective as in Cunningham.
Direct intent is when it is the defendant ‘main aim and purpose to bring about a consequence’.
Indirect intent is when the defendant ‘did not intent the consequence but they virtually certain to occur as a consequence of his/hers action’. The defendant must appreciate this and this is evidence from which the jury can find intent.
Subjective reckless is the mens rea lower that intent, wherein the defendant ‘knows the risk, but takes it anyway’.
In this scenario, the defendant has direct/indirect intent/recklessness.
Therefore in this scenario, D (insert name) has satisfied all the elements of the actus reus and mens rea and will therefore be crinminally liable for assault.
break down of assualt scaffold:
liable for assualt under s.39 of the CJA 1988
1. AR
(ITS)
2. factual causation
3. legal causation
4.
