Common Assault & Battery

Question 1

Common Assault

Answer 1

Fagan v Mpc [1969]
“an assault is committed where the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence.”

Question 2

Actus Reus

Answer 2

Causes victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence

Question 3

Apprehend

Lamb [1967]

Answer 3

Victim need not be in fear but must be aware that they’re bout to be subjected to violence. If victim does not anticipate unlawful personal violence, there is no assault

Question 4

Apprehend

Logdon v DPP [1976]

Answer 4

Where the victim apprehends immediate unlawful personal violence an assault will be committed even if there was no actual threat of violence:

Question 5

Apprehend

R v Ireland [1997]

Answer 5

Silence can amount to an assault. In this case D’s silent phone calls.

Question 6

Apprehend

Tuberville v Savage (1669)

Answer 6

Conditional threats cannot constitute assault

D said as he touched his sword “If it were not assize time, I would not take such language.”

Question 7

Immediate

Constanza [1997]

Answer 7

CA: held it was enought o prove “prove fear of violence at some time not excluding the immediate future” As long as the immediate future remained a possibility.

Question 8

Unlawful

Answer 8

If D haslawful excuse to use force, actions will not amount to assault.

• > Reasonable punishment of a child S.58 Children Act 2004
• > Where the victim consents
• > Where the defendant acts in self- defence or prevention of a crime

Question 9

Personal

Answer 9

The term personal violence can be misleading in that the victim need only apprehend the level of force that amounts to a technical battery. Ie any touching will suffice.

Question 10

Mens Rea

Answer 10

Intent or Recklessness

Question 11

Intent

Answer 11

Normal test of intent it is a crime of basic intent and therefore a crime where the liability of voluntarily intoxicated persons is resolved under the priciples of Majewski [1977]

Question 12

Recklessness

Answer 12

Cunningaham Recklessness
did the defendant foresee the harm that in fact occurred, might occur from his actions, but nevertheless continue regardless of the risk.

Question 13

Battery

Answer 13

R v Ireland [1997] Lord Steyn: “unlawful application of force by the defendant upon the victim”

Question 14

Force

Answer 14

a. Force does not have to be direct DPP v K

b. Excludes all contact generally acceptable for living in society: West Berkshire Health

Question 15

Faulkner v Talbot [1981]

Answer 15

Lord Lane CJ defined unlawful physical force as
“any intentional [or reckless] touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. It need not necessarily be hostile, rude, or aggressive

Question 16

Omission

Answer 16

Santana-Bermudez [2004]-Where V’s finger was pierced by syring lying in D’spocket. Courts used approach Miller. D created danger by not telling police officer he had needle in pocket when asked before search commenced.

Question 17

Brown [1994]

Answer 17

Hostility requirement may be imposed in cases where the contact does not cause blodily harm or bodily harm was unintended and unforeseen. Were conduct caused degree of harm hostility will be presumed.

Question 18

Mens Rea

Answer 18

Intent-

Recklessness- Cunningham subject to Majeqski exception for VI