OAPA: Assault Flashcards
where is the law for assault found
s.39 Criminal Justice Act
what does it say in s.39 CJA
-confirms assault and battery are 2 different crimes
-both are summary offences (only tried in magistrates court)
what cases confirm the s.39 distinction between assault and battery
-Collins v Wilcock; Goff LJ said assault involves causing another to apprehend unlawful/unwanted contact whereas battery involves unwanted/unlawful contact
-Nelson reaffirms
what is the legal principle in Collins v Wilcock ( and is reafirmed in Nelson)
-Goff LJ said assault involves causing another to apprehend unlawful/unwanted contact whereas battery involves unwanted/unlawful contact
what type of crime is assault
result crime
D’s conduct results in C apprehending immediate and unlawful personal violence
what is the definition of assault and which 3 cases use that definition
-any conduct by D which intentionally or recklessly causes V to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
-Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
-Savage
-Ireland; Burstow
what are the legal principles behind ‘apprehends’
-apprehending unwanted touching is sufficient
-there is implied consent to assault in everyday situations which then makes other acts non consensual and therefore unlawful
what is the key case for ‘immediacy’
-London v DPP
-must cause V to believe force is about to be inflicted
-V subjectively perceives threat
-Court objectiveley decides if threat is imminent enough
what happened/ is the legal principle in London v DPP
-must cause V to believe force is about to be inflicted
-V subjectively perceives threat
-Court objectiveley decides if threat is imminent enough
give 3 cases relating to ‘immediacy’
-London v DPP; must cause V to (subj by jury) believe force was about (obj by courts) to be inflicted
-Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station; LJ Kerr limited immediacy to where D is immediately adjascent on other side of window
-R v Costanza; stretched immediacy so some time not excluding the immediate future was sufficient
what happened / are the legal principles in Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police
-LJ Kerr limited immediacy to where D is immeidatley adjascent on the other side of the window
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Costanza (1997)
-stretched requirement for immediacy
-CA held that fear of violence at some time, not excluding immediate future was sufficient
-silent phone calls may be assault but case by case approach based on V’s degree of fear
what if D has no means of carrying out threat
-Q is whether D intended to cause V to believe in D’s assault and whether V believed it
give 3 cases regarding D having no means to carry out threat
-Lamb; V knew D’s gun was an imitation so no fear of assault
-Logdon v DPP; V believed imitation gun was real, assault
-Tuberville v Savage (1669); words may negate an assault but cannot undo an assault if comitted
what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Lamb
- V knew D’s gun was an imitation so no fear of assault
