Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Paper 1-Criminal Law > Non-fatal offences-Assault > Flashcards

Non-fatal offences-Assault Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What does non-fatal mean?

A

Doesn’t cause death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the AR of Assault?

A

Causing apprehension of immediate and unlawful violence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the MR of Assault?

A

Intention or subjective recklessness thereto (to do the AR)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the MR of Assault?

A

Intention or subjective recklessness thereto

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Where does assault come from?

A

Common law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is common law?

A

Law deriving from cases

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Define assault.

A

Causing the victim to apprehend (expect) force

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What forms common assault?

A

Battery and assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Why do assault and battery form common assault?

A

They come from common law.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Give an example of an assault.

A

Threatening to hit someone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Give an example of a battery.

A

Hitting someone unexpectedly from behind.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Give an example of assault and battery (common assault)

A

Threatening to hit someone, then doing so.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

In what case did the House of Lord confirm the definition of assault?

A

Ireland and Burstow (1997)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What does apprehend mean?

A

Expect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What did the House of Lords confirm the definition of assault as in Ireland and Burstow (1997)?

A

Assault is an act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Which section of which Act provides what type of offence assault and battery are and what their maximum sentence and /or maximum fine is?

A

s.39
Criminal and Justice Act 1988

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What type of offences are assault and battery according to s.39 of the Criminal and Justice Act 1988?

A

Summary offences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is the maximum sentence and/or maximum fine according to s.39 of Criminal and Justice Act 1988?

A

Maximum sentence of six months and/or maximum £5000 fine (level 5 standard scale)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What does the Criminal and Justice Act 1988 not provide?

A

A definition of either battery or assault.
These come from common law.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What are the 5 elements of the actus reus of assault?

A
  1. An act
  2. Causing
  3. Apprehend
  4. Immediate
  5. Unlawful violence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What 4 things does the element of actus reus of assault ‘An Act’ tell us?

A
  1. Words can be assault
  2. Silence without a gesture can be an assault
  3. Words can negate an action
  4. “Conditional” offers can still be assault
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Which case shows that words can be assault?

A

Meade and Belt (1823)

22
Q

What did the judge say in Meade and Belt (1823)?

A

‘No words or singing are equivalent to an assault.’

23
Q

What case was the saying in Meade and Belt, said by the judge, overturned by the CoA with?

A

Constanza

24
Q

What are the facts of Constanza?

A

A stalker sent over 800 threatening letters.
Followed the V home.
Wrote offensive messages on her front door.
Drove past her house.
Stole items from her washing line.

25
Q

In Ireland what did Lord Steyn confirm by giving an example?

A

If a man accosts (approaches) a woman (can be used interchangeably now) in a dark alley saying ‘come with me or I’ll stab you’ then this is assault.

26
Q

Which cases are used for silence without a gesture can be an assault?

A

Ireland
Smith v Chief Superintendant of Woking Police Station

27
Q

Summarise the facts of Ireland.

A

Silent calls

28
Q

Which case shows that words can negate (invalidate) an action?

A

Tuberville v Savage (1669)

29
Q

Summarise the facts of Tuberville v Savage (1669).

A

A D angered by comments made to him put his hands on his swords but said: “If it were not assize time I would not take such language.”

30
Q

Which case shows that “conditional” offers can still be assault?

A

Read v Coker (1853)

31
Q

Summarise the facts of Read v Coker (1853).

A

D and his servants surrounded V threatening to beat him up if he did not leave premises; this was an assault.

32
Q

What rules apply to the element of causing?

A

Normal rules of causation.

33
Q

Summarise the normal rules of causation.

A

Factual causation (“but for” test)
Legal causation (“operative and substantial cause”)
Complication-medical error, take your victim as you find them, V’s own actions

34
Q

What does the element ‘apprehend’ mean?

A

Expect/anticipate

35
Q

The definition of assault does not say that the V has to fear assault but merely what?

A

Expect it

36
Q

Give an analogy regarding the V having to merely expect assault not fear it.

A

A little old lady could threaten a heavy weight boxer and it would still (in theory) be assault.

37
Q

What cases are used to represent the element apprehend?

A

Lamb (1967)
Burstow (1997)

38
Q

Summarise facts of Lamb (1967).

A

Two friends were playing with a revolver when one accidentally shot the other dead-as the V had not apprehended that the gun would fire, there was no assault.

39
Q

What did the courts confirm in Burstow (1997).

A

The apprehension of violence does not have to be rational (reasonable) in the panic of the moment, provided it is genuinely held.

40
Q

Regarding the immediate element what did the V have to traditionally fear and how has this changed?

A

Traditionally the V has had to fear immediate force.
Recent cases=concept of immediacy has been considerably weakened.

41
Q

Which cases are used to explain the immediate element?

A

Smith v Chief Superintendant of Woking Police Station
Ireland and Burstow

42
Q

Summarise the facts of Smith v Chief Superintendant of Woking Police Station (1983)

A

The victim at home in her flat
Terrified to see D staring at her from garden
Accused could not easily enter flat as door were locked.
D found guilty as V did not know what he was going to do next.

43
Q

Why did the court deem the assault immediate in Smith v Chief Superintendant of Woking Police Station (1983)?

A

She feared the D would go on to commit violence sufficiently immediately for the purpose of the offence.

44
Q

On what basis were silent calls liable in Ireland and Burstow?

A

The V could have feared an imminent (on the way) attack based on the fact she had received their calls.

45
Q

Why is the phrase “apprehend immediate and unlawful force” used instead of the unlawful violence (element of actus reus of assault)?

A

Word violence is misleading
The V is not required to apprehend any injury, pain or harm.

46
Q

Assault can be committed even when the “force” is what?

A

A mere touch, provided the touch is unwanted.

47
Q

In what case was the mens rea of assault confirmed?

A

Savage (1997)

48
Q

What is the mens rea of assault?

A

a) a direct intention to cause the victim to apprehend violence
b) recklessness as to whether the victim apprehends violence
[indirect intent most likely won’t come up]

49
Q

What case is used for direct intent?

A

Mohan (1976)

50
Q

What case is used for recklessness?

A

Cunningham

51
Q

IF indirect intent comes up, what test is it?

A

Was there virtual certainty of the criminal consequence?
Did the D know this?

52
Q

IF indirect intent comes up, what is the case?

A

Woollins

Paper 1-Criminal Law (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions