common law assault and battery

Question 1

common law assault

section 39

assault

Answer 1

defintion -
Putting a person in apprehension of immediate and unlawful personal harm.

ar- venna
act that causes apprehension

omission - not sufficient for assault

Question 2

common law assault

section 39

positive act

Answer 2

Includes words (verbal or written) - Constanza.

Silent phone calls can also constitute assault - Ireland.

Question 3

common law assault

key consideration

Answer 3

Whether the victim (V) actually apprehends the threat - Lamb.

Question 4

common law assault

legality

Answer 4

must be an unlawful act , lawful act doesn’t constitute assault ( list lawful acts )

• imminent force is needed, not instantaneous ( smith v chief )

Question 5

common law battery

ar

section 39

Answer 5

Infliction of unlawful personal harm

collins v Wilcock - Any touch can be sufficient for battery.

Thomas - Touching clothing counts as battery..

Question 6

common law battery

sufficient / not sufficient

Answer 6

Unlawfulness: Can result in technical common assault (battery) - Pegram v DPP, Wood v DPP.
Spitting with Threat: Spitting while claiming to be COVID-positive can be battery or even ABH (actual bodily harm).
Continuing Act: The act can be a continuous act - Fagan v MPC.
Indirect Acts: Sufficient for battery - DPP v K, Haystead; transferred malice applies.
Omission: Rarely sufficient but possible - Santana-Bermudez.
Battery Without Assault: Can occur when contact is made by stealth.

Question 7

problems with ‘assault ‘

Answer 7

’ assault’ covers both making someone feel scared of harm ( apprehension) and the actual act of hitting someone ( battery)

• confusing as people often think assault only means physical contact

misunderstanding can lead to problems on how the law is applied and how cases are handled

Question 8

development of cl ab

Answer 8

• law on cl ab developed on a case by case basis
• creates confusion and uncertainty in the law
• as a result people may find it hard to understand what the law is actually saying

Question 9

differences in offence categories

Answer 9

cl ab have the same mens rea as abh

but they’re seen as 2 different types of offences

leads to different maximum sentences for each offence, which ca be confusing for those trying to understand law

Question 10

lack of guidance

Answer 10

• reliance of judicial interpretation = lack of clear guidance for courts and prosecutors

= inconsiditencies in how offences are charged

= meaning it could seem random and unfair depending on which court is handling case