Assault

Question 1

What are the proofs of Assault?

Answer 1

• Defendant
• Assaults
• Another
• Intentionally or Recklessly
• Without Consent
• Without Lawful Excuse

(Occ ABH) or (Wound/Occ GBH)

Question 2

What is an assault?

Answer 2

Any act which intentionally or possibly recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence…. synonymous with ‘battery’. (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner)

Question 3

What section of the Crimes Act is assault?

Answer 3

S 61 of the Crimes Act 1900

Question 4

Can mere words constitute an assault? If so, what case outlines the test?

Answer 4

Yes, Master v Watt

Question 5

What is the test in Master v Watt?

Answer 5

1. Did the words put the victim in apprehension of physical force?
2. If so, was it apprehension of immediate physical force?

Question 6

What does Police v Greaves state about threats?

Answer 6

It is the very essence of a threat that it should be made for the purpose of intimidating or overcoming the will of the person to whom it is addressed.

Question 7

In relation to causation does the defendants actions have to be the sole cause?

Answer 7

No, it must be a substantial cause. It need not be the only substantial cause.

Question 8

Does the victims behaviour have to be logical to break the chain of causation?

Answer 8

No, it can be unreasonable as the circumstances allow.

Question 9

What is Actual Bodily Harm?

Answer 9

It is not defined in the crimes act. Bodily harm is said to include any hurt or injury calculate to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim

McIntyre v R - Bruises and scratches

Question 10

What is GBH?

Answer 10

Section 4 of Crimes Act:

• destruction of foetus
• permanent or serious disfiguring of the person
• any grievous bodily disease

Question 11

What is required for wounding?

Answer 11

Epidermis and dermis must be broken. The wound is proven by expert evidence in the form of a section 177 Evidence Act certificate.

Question 12

Intention for common assault, what two things are required?

Answer 12

Actus reus - is the action causing the effect on the victim’s mind
Mens rea - is the intention to cause that effect

Question 13

Do you need to intent to cause GBH?

Answer 13

Yes

Question 14

The concept of recklessness?

Answer 14

Is a realisation of the possibility that some injury might result but nevertheless proceeding with the act

Question 15

What is temporal coincidence?

Answer 15

That’s mens rea and actus reus occur at the same time

Question 16

What section is self defence in the Crimes Act?

Answer 16

Section 418

Question 17

What is self defence?

Answer 17

A person carries out conduct if the person believes the conduct is necessary:

• to defend himself from another
• to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his liberty or that of another.
• to protect property from unlawful interference.
• to prevent trespass to any land and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances.

Question 18

What does belief mean?

Answer 18

Above suspicion but below knowledge

Question 19

Mikhael v Conroy and Smith says what about continuing course of conduct?

Answer 19

That there can be one ongoing assault charge for multiple assaults against the one victim over a period of time.

Question 20

How many police can you put on an indictment for resist?

Answer 20

As many as you would like. This is in Hull v Nuske.

Also if assault of multiple police, there should be a seperate indictment for each.

Question 21

Indirect assaults, what are some examples?

Answer 21

• An assault can be carried out directly, or indirectly. But must be made with hostile intent, the slightest force is all that is required. Indirect assaults still require intent. As long as the defendant intends to, and in fact does, cause the victim to apprehend immediate force. e.g,
• Encouraging dog to bite
• Striking. Horse upon which victim is riding
• Setting up a trap

Question 22

Intention regarding ABH?

Answer 22

Only intention to apply unlawful force. There does not have to be an intention by the defendant to cause ABH. The test as to whether bodily harm has been occasioned by the assault is, established on objective principles. (R V Percali)