common assault (s.39)

Question 1

What is the criteria to prove common assault?

Answer 1

‘an act which causes the victim to apprehend the immediate application of violence, either intentionally, or recklessly’

Question 2

What is the actus reus of common assault?

Answer 2

an act which causes the victim to apprehend the immediate application of violence, either intentionally, or recklessly

Question 3

Explain ‘act’ as part of the actus reus of common assault.

Answer 3

assault - threats of violence

Constanza: wrote letters, visited house, and made phone calls (all containing threats)

Ireland: made several silent phone calls to V

Question 4

Explain ‘(causing the V to) apprehend’ as part of the actus reus of common assault.

Answer 4

Does V think violence or force is coming?

Lamb: D pointed loaded gun at V - possible condition is attached to threat - ‘if you weren’t so big I’d punch you.

• word can cancel out threat -e.g:

Tuberville v Savage: ‘if it weren’t aside time, I wouldn’t take such language from you.’

Light: ‘if it weren’t for that bloody policeman outside, I’d split your head open.’

Question 5

Explain ‘immediate’ as part of the actus reus of common assault.

Answer 5

Imminent not instantaneous - at some point in the near future.

Smith v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: D looked through window - petrified but there was no actual way of getting in.

Question 6

What is the mens rea of common assault?

Answer 6

Intent - Maloney

Recklessly - Cunningham: D saw risk, took risk, and injury caused.