Assault

Question 1

What is an assault

Answer 1

an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person’

Question 2

What are the ingredients of assault

Answer 2

reasonable apprehension of harm, intentional, immediate and direct

Question 3

What is an act

Answer 3

word, gestures and silence

Question 4

which case held that traditionally words unaccompanied by actions were insufficient to give rise to an assault

Answer 4

R v Meade and Belt

Question 5

Which case has held that words may amount to an assault

Answer 5

R. v Ireland , HL per Lord Steyn: ‘A thing said is a thing done. There is no reason why something said should be incapable of causing apprehension of immediate personal violence

Question 6

Will silence amount to an assault

Answer 6

On the facts in R v Ireland, the court was prepared to accept that silence would be capable of giving rise to such fears. This seems sensible and it is to be hoped that although the decision was made in criminal law, it will be applied analogy to tort law

Question 7

C must apprehend unlawful force will be inflicted upon him

Answer 7

If the D sneaks up on the C from behind, this will not amount to an assault, because the C has no knowledge of D so cannot apprehend his actions.

Question 8

Must the apprehension be reasonable

Answer 8

yes

Question 9

Which case held apprehension must be reasonable

Answer 9

Danvish v Egyptair, ‘I do not think that he did anticipate (or apprehend) an attack at the time, nor do I think that he had reason to. I have reached the conclusion that his assertion that he did is a product of his over-wrought state’

Question 10

What was held in R v St George regarding apprehension

Answer 10

drew a distinction between a unloaded gun in which the party was aware was empty, and an empty gun which gave the appearance of being loaded, would amount to an assault

Question 11

What was held in Stephens v Myers

Answer 11

P was threatened with violence whilst attempting to expel with D from a parish meeting. The D had approached the P threatening violence, but due to the intervention by the churchwarden, D could only be liable for assault.

Question 12

What is immediate unlawful force

Answer 12

If the C can see that the D is not in the position to inflict immediate and direct harm on the C, then the C has nothing to fear and so the D cannot be liable for assault. I.e. if I threatened you with violence as I am passing you on a train, I have not committed an assault.

Question 13

Case in which there could be no immediate unlawful force (miners)

Answer 13

Thomas v National Union of Miners (South Wales Area), Striking miners, who hurled insults at working miners who had been transported into work in vehicles, were not held to be liable for assault, because the vehicles had been protected by a police cordon, so they could not reasonable expect immediate and direct force to be used against them

Question 14

In R v ireland what was the threat that was held to be immediate enough

Answer 14

I will be at your door in a minute or two.’ This is sufficient to be immediate.

Question 15

What factors influence whether a threat can be immediate or not

Answer 15

Makes a difference what the threat is- e.g. gun you have ability to immediately injury if you stood 1 mile away, but if stood with a knife 1 mile away probably not immediate.

Question 16

What is the body guard problem

Answer 16

The D shouts a threat to kill you. You, however, have the best bodyguard in the world, who you believe are able to prevent any persons who attempt to touch you from reaching you. Do you have a viable claim for assault?

Question 17

What has the approach to the body guard problem been taken as

Answer 17

• It is difficult to imagine a factual situation where you would have 100% confidence in your protection so would not be at least fearful. Also, it appears to fall down to reasonable apprehension. Would it still be reasonable to apprehend force if your bodyguard is with you? It can be argued that it would be reasonable- you do not know what the person assaulting you may be prepared to do.

Question 18

which case demonstrates that words can negate

Answer 18

• Tuberville v Savage, D waves a sword at C, but at the same time says “If it were not assize-time I would not take such language from you”. Here it was held that words can negate the act of assault, even if the actions can be seen as threatening, this is because the words show that there will not be an immediate infliction of violence.

Question 19

What has the position to conditional threats been taken to be

Answer 19

where the C is merely given an option to avoid violence. It was no excuse for the highwayman to claim that his victims had a viable alternative option when he stated ‘stand and deliver, your money or your life!”

Question 20

In which case was there a conditional threat

Answer 20

Read v Coker, the defendant was liable for assault when he and his servants threatened to break the P’s neck unless he left the defendant’s workshop.

Question 21

What remedies will be awarded

Answer 21

damages