Assault s.39

Question 1

AR

Answer 1

D causes V to fear immediate unlawful physical violence (R v Ireland)

Question 2

D’s act (4)

Answer 2

o An omission isn’t sufficient
o Words alone are sufficient (Constanza)
o Silent calls from D to V are sufficient (Burstow)
o Words can prevent an assault (Tuberville v Savage)

Question 3

Causes

Answer 3

o factual: ‘but for’ test (White)
o legal: multiple causes, more than minimal (‘so’ sentence), need not be substantial
- thin skull’ rule/take your victim as you find him (Blaue)
o chain of causation: intervening act

Question 4

V to fear (3)

Answer 4

o V must apprehend (anticipate, not fear) immediate force (Lamb)
o the fear does not have to be rational (Burstow)

Question 5

Immediate (2)

Answer 5

• V genuinely apprehends ‘possibility’ of an immediate attack (Ireland)
• ‘V did not know what D was going to do next, but might be of a violent nature’ (Smith)

Question 6

Unlawful (2)

Answer 6

o something is unlawful if it is not consented to/the feared touching is unwanted
o there is implied consent to everyday touching –handshake/hugs/jostling in crowded place

Question 7

Violence (2)

Answer 7

o Force apprehended may be as slight as a touching (Collins v Willcock)
o Touching a person’s clothes is equivalent to touching the person (Thomas)

Question 8

MR

Answer 8

DI/OI/Recklessness to cause V to fear immediate unlawful physical violence (R v Savage)

• DI: D has the direct purpose of causing V to fear IUPV (Mohan)
• OI: D foresees that it’s a virtual certainty V will fear IUPV (Woollin)
• R: D realises his conduct could cause V to fear IUPV + takes that risk anyway (Cunningham)