new assault

Question 1

assault

Answer 1

an intentional act (or statement) by the defendant that directly causes another person to reasonably apprehend the imminent infliction of a battery.

‘intentional’

‘reasonably apprehends’

‘unlawful’

Question 2

3 requirments of an assault claim

Answer 2

(1) the defendant intends that the claimant apprehends the immediate and direct application of unlawful force;

(2)claimant has to reasonably apprehend the immediate and direct application of unlawful force;

(3) defendant has no lawful justification or excuse.

Question 3

factors key in assualt claim

Answer 3

• intention
• reasonable apprehension
• immediate and direct application of unlawful force

Question 4

(1) intention

Answer 4

• defendant must have acted voluntarily
• intended to cause the claimant to apprehend immediate unlawful force or..
• be subjectively reckless- possibly know that his actions would cause apprehension of infliction of a battery.

Question 5

whats the test of reasonable apprehension

Answer 5

reasonable apprehension test is objective. doesnt matter if claimant was overly timid, or could’ve defended themselves. if they reasonably apprehended an infliction of battery, its assault.

Question 6

case that shows reasonable apprehension

Answer 6

stephen v myers

defenendant threatened claimant with a clenched fist, but he was far away from each other. however, courts ruled that claimants apprehension to battery was held to be reasonable e, and defendant was charged for assault.

Question 7

(2) immediate and direct application of unlawful force

Answer 7

In order for there to be an assault the claimant must reasonably apprehend the infliction of immediate and direct unlawful force.

If she knows that the defendant is not in a position to do this then there can be no assault: ‘It is not every threat, when there is no actual violence, that constitutes an assault, there must, in all cases, be the means of carrying that threat into effect’

Question 8

case that shows courts assessing if application of force was immediete and direct

Answer 8

thomas v national union of miners

claimants argued that the national union of miners were verbually abusing and harassing them so made a claim for assault. courts established this did not meet the immideacy or directness necessary to establish and assault.

Question 9

are merely words assault?

Answer 9

before R v ireland, no as they need to be accompanied by a threatening gesture.

if its severe enough it could be harassment under protection from harassment act 1997.

Question 10

can threatening gestures be negated by words?

Answer 10

yes, like in tuberville v savage.

Question 11

are conditional threats where theres no gestures assault?

Answer 11

yes, no doubt. conditional threat gives the claiamant no other option but to apprehend as battery.

Question 12

how did R v Ireland case negate the notion that words alone cannot be assault?

Answer 12

• claimant suffered psychiatric ilness as a result of repeated harassment including silent phone calls from the defendant
• courts argued that it just depends on if the claimant in the circumstances reasonably believed that the oral threat could cause future imminent threat of personal violence
• silence can amount to such fears.