Common Assault

Question 1

1. The Defendant may have commited…?

Answer 1

D may have committed Common Assault under Common Law, and charged under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, defined as:

“an intentional or reckless act which causes a person to apprehend (fear) the infliction of immediate unlawful force ”, as in Nelson.

Question 2

2. The Actus Reus is…?

Answer 2

The Actus Reus is an act causing the apprehension (fear) of the infliction of immediate unlawful force.

Here, [eg. D committed the AR through act/gesture as in LOGDON when he threatened V with a knife AND/OR though words as in CONSTANZA when he verbally threatened V OR through silent phone calls/stalking as in IRELAND].

Question 3

3. (If Relevant) Words May Negate of what otherwise might be an…?

Answer 3

IF RELEVANT: Words may negate what otherwise might be an assault (TUBERVILLE v SAVAGE).

• Here, [eg. D said that he would kill V if the police were not watching, so that is not an assault].

Question 4

4. There must be Fear as in…? and D caused V’s apprehension of the infliction of unlawful force…

Answer 4

There must be fear, as in Lamb and D caused V’s apprehension (fear) of the infliction of unlawful force because [eg. V ran away]. OR [there was no fear, as V laughed at D when he threatened him].

Question 5

5. (If Relevant) The Fear may be caused…?

Answer 5

IF RELEVANT: The Fear may be caused indirectly as in Dume.

Question 6

6. The Apprehension (Fear) was of the infliction of the “immediate” unlawful force, defined flexibly in…?

Answer 6

The apprehension (fear) was of the infliction of “immediate” unlawful force, defined flexibly in SMITH v CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF WOKING POLICE STATION because V [eg. thought he would soon be attacked].

Question 7

7. The Mens Rea is intention or subjective reckelessness…

Answer 7

The MENS REA is intention or subjective recklessness AS TO causing someone to fear (apprehend) unlawful force, as in VENNA.

Here D [ CHOOSE ONE: EITHER D has specific/direct intention to cause V’s apprehension (fear) as she decided to bring about the particular consequence of fear (MOHAN) when [eg. Threatening to beat V up]

OR D was subjectively reckless as to V’s fear (apprehension) as D foresaw a risk of causing fear(apprehension) and carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when [ eg. she pointed a toy gun at V].

Question 8

8. (If Relevant) The Transferred Malice Princaple Appiles….

Answer 8

IF RELEVANT: “The transferred malice principle applies, where a crime intended for one person falls on another by accident, as in Latimer, so D will still be liable as the mens rea is transferred from X to V.”

TO CONCLUDE, D is likely to be liable as the AR and MR are satisfied