Chapter 4 - Assaults

Question 1

How should assault be understood in legal terms?

Answer 1

Assault is a **generic term **encompassing a **category of related offences **rather than a single crime.

Question 2

How does the law categorize different assault offences?

Answer 2

The law recognizes various assault offences on a sliding scale, distinguishing between severe attacks that nearly cause death and minor incidents that cause no injury.

Question 3

What factors determine the classification of assault offences?

Answer 3

The classification depends on the degree of harm caused to the victim and, to a more limited extent, the mens rea (mental state) of the defendant.

Question 4

What is the order of severity for assault offences, starting from the least serious?

Answer 4

he hierarchy of offences is as follows:
1. Simple and physical assault
2. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
3. Maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm
4. Wounding or causing greivous bodily harm with intent

Question 5

What are the two types of assaults derived from common law?

Answer 5

1. Simple assault
2. Physical assault
   * They are collectively referred to as common assault

Question 6

What is the main difference between simple assault and physical assault?

Answer 6

• In simple assault, the accused does not need to make any physical contact with the victim
• Physical assault involves actual physical contact. However, both often occur together (e.g., raising a fist before hitting).

Question 7

What does section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 1988 state about common assault?

Answer 7

• Section 39 of the CJA 1988 confirms that common assault is a summary only offence triable in the magistrates’ court, with a maximum sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine.
• No formal definition is provided.

Question 8

How is simple assault defined in criminal law? and what is the authority?

Answer 8

“Any act that intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force” (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969]).

Question 9

What alternative terms are used for simple assault in legal contexts?

Answer 9

Simple assault may also be referred to as common assault or technical assault; all terms have the same legal meaning in this context.

Question 10

What constitutes the actus reus of simple assault?

Answer 10

• The actus reus involves causing the victim to** apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force.**
• It is crucial to analyze its components to determine whether the accused has fulfilled this requirement.

Question 11

When is an assault considered unlawful?

Answer 11

An assault is unlawful unless justified, such as when a police officer uses reasonable force to make an arrest or an individual uses reasonable force in self-defense or to protect others or property.

Question 12

Without knowing Biko’s specific actions, what constitutes assault in general terms?

Answer 12

Assault involves any act that causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force, regardless of whether actual violence occurs or harm is inflicted.

Question 13

In a scenario where Biko threatens to punch a martial arts expert who is not afraid of him, does this still constitute assault?

Answer 13

Yes, it constitutes assault because the expert must still apprehend that he is about to be unlawfully touched, regardless of his lack of fear.

Question 14

If Biko creeps up on someone unnoticed and jumps on them, what determines whether this constitutes assault?

Answer 14

This does not constitute assault because the victim, Juliette, did not apprehend any unlawful force before Biko acted. Thus, he is not guilty of simple assault in this situation.

Question 15

What does the term “apprehension” mean in the context of simple assault, and why is it important?

Answer 15

“Apprehension” means the victim’s awareness of potential unlawful force. It is crucial because it establishes the basis for assault even without fear; the victim must believe they are about to be unlawfully touched.

Question 16

What must be established for the actus reus of simple assault regarding the threat?

Answer 16

The threat must involve** immediate unlawful personal force**; it is insufficient for the victim to merely anticipate that unlawful force may occur at some future time.

Question 17

How does a victim’s fear of immediate force affect the actus reus of simple assault?

Answer 17

If the victim fears that unlawful force could occur immediately, this satisfies the actus reus requirement for simple assault, regardless of when the threat is communicated.

Question 18

How does modern technology, like mobile phones, affect the context of threats in simple assault?

Answer 18

With modern technology, a defendant may be very close to the victim when making threats of violence, heightening the victim’s fear of immediate harm and satisfying the actus reus of assault.

Question 19

What were the facts and ruling in R v Burstow [1997]?

Answer 19

In R v Burstow, the defendant stalked the victim for years, sending letters and making phone calls, resulting in her suffering psychiatric injury. The court held that if the victim feared the defendant could strike at any time, this satisfied the actus reus of assault.

Question 20

Can words alone constitute assault, and what case clarified this?

Answer 20

• Yes, words alone can constitute assault.
• This was clarified by the House of Lords in R v Ireland [1997], which indicated that words can be more intimidating than actions.

Question 21

What would be an example of words that could constitute assault?

Answer 21

An example would be someone aggressively saying, “I’m going to beat you up to such an extent that even your own mother won’t recognize you,” which could lead to liability for assault despite no physical gesture.

Question 22

Can silent telephone calls amount to assault, and what did the House of Lords say?

Answer 22

• Yes, silent telephone calls can amount to assault depending on the circumstances.
• Lord Steyn in R v Ireland confirmed this, stating that a silent caller may intend to cause fear in the victim.

Question 23

What factors determine if silent calls constitute assault?

Answer 23

1. Liability for silent calls depends on the impact of the calls on the victim and whether the victim fears immediate unlawful force.
2. A pattern of silent calls is more likely to constitute assault than a single call.

Question 24

What is the justification for considering repeated silent calls as a form of assault?

Answer 24

The justification lies in the **psychological impact **of repeated calls on the victims, which can instill fear of potential immediate harm, thus satisfying the actus reus of assault.