Assault Flashcards
r v lamb
boys playing w a gun. didn’t know it was loaded. one pointed the gun in vs face and killed him. there was no assault as there was no fear
point of law for r v lamb
no fear = no assault
r v misalati
d racially and verbally abused staff at a job centre. evidence that the staff feared violence.
evidence of fear was enough- contact not needed
chambers v dpp
d sent tweets when his flight risked being delayed saying he would “resort to terrorism” and “i am blowing this airport sky high”. appeal allowed as his statements were clearly a joke.
point of law for chambers v dpp
if threat is made as a joke then the offence will not be committed as d lacks men’s rea
tuberville v savage
d was annoyed by someone so he put his hand on his sword. he said something meaning that since the justices were hearing criminal cases in town he had no intention of using violence. his words cancelled the assault
point of law for tuberville v savage
words can cancel an assault
smith v chief superintendent woking police station
v at home and saw d standing in her garden staring at her through the window. found liable for assault as the victim feared the immediate infliction of force.
point of law for smith v chief superintendent woking police station
the victim may fear the possibility of immediate force
point of law for r v lamb
no fear = no assault
point of law for r v misalati
evidence of fear and violence is enough- no need for physical contact
point of law for chambers v dpp
if threat is made at a joke then the offence will not be committed, partly as d will lack men’s rea
point of law for r v ireland and r v constanza
words and silence can constitute an assault
point of law for tuberville v savage
words can cancel an assault
what can the mens rea be for assault
intention or cunningham reckless
