Assault Flashcards
Requirements for tort of ASSAULT:
(1) Claimant’s reasonable apprehension of the application of direct and immediate, unlawful force.
(2) Intention that the claimant apprehends the application of unlawful force.
Stephens v Myers (1839)
AUTHORITY FOR PRINCIPLE THAT NOT EVERY THREAT WILL INCUR LIABILITY FOR ASSAULT - D MUST HAVE THE MEANS TO CARRY OUT THE THREAT.
Fight in church parish meeting - D threatened to hit chairman but was blocked from going towards him by the warden.
Held that there was an assault as D would’ve been able to reach plaintiff sooner or later - thus had the means to carry out the threat.
Thomas v NUM [1986]
Striking miners on picket lines - non-striking miners driven in on coaches - subject of verbal abuse from picketers + threats of physical violence.
Applied Stephens v Myers
Assault = “AN OVERT ACT INDICATING AN IMMEDIATE INTENTION TO COMMIT A BATTERY, COUPLED WITH THE CAPACITY TO CARRY THAT INTENTION INTO EFFECT.”
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
Very old case - drew sword - “if it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you”
Held that a conditional threat as such contained words that indicated that a battery was not going to be committed.
Language overrode the physical threat.
R. v Ireland [1998]
CRIMINAL CASE but principle applicable in tort.
Harassment.
Held that words alone can be enough for liability for assault under S.47 OAPA 1861
Words alone can suffice - applies in tort as well. + Silence (e.g. a silent caller causing fear by the confusion) can also be enough for assault.
Intention to commit an assalt
Same cases and principles as applies to battery.
