Assault and Battery Flashcards
What is the legal definition of assault under s. 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988?
Assault is defined as intentionally or recklessly causing another to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence.
Which case established that an assault can be committed by intentionally or recklessly causing someone to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence?
Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 Q.B. 439.
Which case reaffirmed the requirement of intention or recklessness in the commission of assault under s. 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988?
R v Venna [1976] Q.B. 421.
(This was needed to reaffirm the requirements of assault or battery given that it is not enshrined in law).
In which case(s) was it held that assault involves causing someone to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence, emphasising the mental state of the defendant?
R v Savage, R v Parmenter [1991] 1 A.C. 699.
(Both cases where women tipped beer
-Parmenter- child)
-
What constitutes battery under s. 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988?
Battery involves the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force.
Question: What cases illustrate the types of conduct that can constitute an assault?
R v Ireland [1998] and R v Constanza [1997]
+ Burstow
+ (Both Constanza and Burstow relating to silent phone calls)
+ (Ireland - telephone calls - harassing multiple women)
How is causation determined in cases of assault?
What are the other forms of causation - to show no breaking of the chain? (Applied to all cases)
It follows ordinary rules of causation = ‘but for’
(Factual causation)
Legal causation - Substantial /significant cause = R v Cheshire / R v Hughes
+ Operating cause (No novus actus interveniens
Which cases illustrate the requirement for the victim to apprehend immediate violence for an act to be considered assault?
What cases discuss the elements of unlawfulness and personal violence in assault?
State two cases which contrast to the decision taken in one of the cases referred to above?
Collins v Wilcock (Resisting followed by assault = A scratch - but the officer was acting out of his powers - therefore quashed conviction) [1984] and R v Brown (So unlawful as to viciate consent - Sadomasochism) [1993].
Brown - can be contrasted to Dica - Brown = ABH (cannot be consented to)
But GBH in Dica and Konzani (can be consented to - HIV cases)
Which case established the need for intentionality or recklessness in committing assault?
Is recklessness alone sufficient for mens reus?
R v Venna [1976].(Groupof youths resisted arrest - officers hand fractured due to recklessness)
-YES as proved in the case above.
What cases explain the act and application of force in battery?
Collins v Wilcock [1984], Fagan v MPC [1969], and DPP v K [1990].
Which case is cited for the element of unlawfulness in battery?
Collins v Wilcock [1984].
How is intentionality or recklessness relevant in the context of battery? (which case explains?)
As per R v Venna [1975].
How does s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 differentiate between assault and battery? (Explain this difference)
It clarifies that both are separate offences within the legal framework.
Unlike assault, battery occurs when there is unlawful contact between the perpetrator and the victim. Battery is committed when someone intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another person which may or may not result in injury.
What cases elaborate on the distinctions and connections between assault and battery?
Fagan v MPC and DPP v Taylor; DPP v Little [1992].
