common assault (assault, battery)

Question 1

what are 2 ways of committing common assault?

Answer 1

assault

battery

Question 2

what type of offence are assault and battery?

Answer 2

common law offences, no statutory definition for either, however, statute law recognises their existence as both are charged under s 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Question 3

what is the maximum penalty for assault and battery?

Answer 3

s 39 of Criminal Justice Act 1988 sets out the max penalties for them is 6 months imprisonment or a fine of 5000, or both

Question 4

how do assault and battery differ?

Answer 4

assault- there is no touching, only the fear of immediate unlawful force.
battery- there must be actual force
sometimes these overlap e.g. fear of force before force is applied

Question 5

what is the definition of assault?

Answer 5

an assault is an act which causes the V to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force with either an intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence, or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused

Question 6

what must there be for actus reas of assault to be satisfied?

Answer 6

an act

which causes V to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force

Question 7

is an omission sufficient to constitute ‘an act’ for assault?

Answer 7

No

Question 8

are words sufficient as ‘an act’ for assault? case?

Answer 8

yes. these can be verbal or written.

R v Constanza - letters can be assault, there was a fear of violence

Question 9

R v Ireland, ‘an act’ for assault

Answer 9

held that even silent telephone calls can be assault, depends on the facts of the case

Question 10

apprehend immediate unlawful force?

Answer 10

acts or words must cause V to apprehend that immediate force is going to be used against them, no assault if the in situation its clear D cannot use force

Question 11

R v lamb and apprehending immediate unlawful force

Answer 11

pointing a gun at someone who knows it’s unloaded is not assault, the other person does not fear immediate force.

Question 12

fear of immediate force is necessary, what does immediate mean?

Answer 12

does not mean instantaneous, but ‘imminent

Question 13

what does the case Smith v Chief Superintendent Of Woking Police Station show in relation to fear of force in assault?

Answer 13

fear of immediate force means ‘imminent’,
fear of what he might do next (likely to be of violent nature) was sufficiently immediate for the purposes of the offence

Question 14

what may prevent an act from being an assault? case?

Answer 14

words indicating that there will be no violence

Tuberville v Savage (1669) (not assault as he showed he wasn’t going to do anything)

Question 15

what does the case of R v Light (1857) show in regards to words indicating no violence, assault?

Answer 15

it depends on circumstances. D raised sword above the head of his wife , assault as wife feared force would be used and the words in the circumstance where not enough to negate fear.

Question 16

does the force in assault have to be unlawful?

Answer 16

yes

Question 17

what is the mens rea for an assault?

Answer 17

either an intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence, or recklessness as to whether fear is caused.
test for recklessness is subjective, D must realise there is a risk his words/acts could cause another to fear violence

Question 18

what is the definition of battery?

Answer 18

the application of unlawful force to another person intending either to apply unlawful physical force to another or being reckless as to whether unlawful force is applied.

Question 19

what is the AR of battery?

Answer 19

the application of unlawful force to another person

Question 20

what does the case of Collins v Wilcock (1984) show about force?

Answer 20

touching a person to get their attention is acceptable but physical restraint is not, police held her arm but was not arresting her so officer has committed a battery

Question 21

{similar to Collins v Wilcock (1984)} what does the case of Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008) show about force in battery?

Answer 21

as officer had not arrested W, there was technical assault bt police officer of holding his arm, W entitled to struggle and not guilty.

Question 22

can touching a person’s clothing constitute battery?

Answer 22

R v Thomas (D touched bottom of woman skirt)

‘if you touch a person’s clothes while he is wearing them that is equivalent to touching him’

Question 23

can a battery be committed by a continuing act? case?

Answer 23

yes, as shown in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968), D parked unknowingly on officer’s foot (no full offence of battery as no intention) however this became battery the moment intention was formed to leave wheel on foot.

Question 24

can battery be committed by an indirect act? case?

Answer 24

yes, D causes force to be applied without touching V
DPP v K (acid in drier)
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire, D caused baby to fall by punching woman holding baby

Question 25

case for omission in battery?

Answer 25

DPP v Santa-Bermudez,
officer searching D’s pockets asks D if there are any sharp objects, D says ‘no’, officer injured by needle in pocket,
failure to tell could to actus reus

Question 26

when can force be lawful and so not be battery?

Answer 26

• where V gives genuine consent
• when used in self defence/preventing crime (only if reasonable in circumstance)
• correction of a child (only if it does not cause injury)

Question 27

what is the mens rea for battery?

Answer 27

intention to apply unlawful physical force to another or recklessness as to whether force is applied.