Tresspass to the Person - ASSAULT

Question 1

What is assault?

Answer 1

Collins v Wilcock 1984

‘the defendant voluntarily does a positive act, intending (or being subjectively reckless so as) to cause the claimant reasonably to apprehend an immediate battery’

D’s intentional (or subjectively reckless) act which causes C reasonable to apprehend the immediate infliction of direct unlawful force

Question 2

Force

Answer 2

The claimant actually and reasonably believing that the defendant was going to apply the slightest amount of physical contact (assault)

Question 3

Particular aspects of assault - WHAT ACT IS SUFFICIENT?

Answer 3

A gesture is a sufficient act for an assault

Spoken words are a sufficient act for an assault
> R v Ireland –> ‘a thing said is a thing done’

Silence alone would be a pure omission to speak - not enough –> so this would not be a sufficient act for assault

Question 4

Particular aspects of assault - WHAT BELIEF MUST C HAVE?

Answer 4

D.’s act must cause:

1. The subjective part: C. must actually believe that C. is about to be subject to an immediate battery; AND
2. The objective part: A reasonable person in C.’s circumstances would reasonably have believed that they are about to be subject to an immediate battery?

Question 5

Particular aspects of assault - C MUST BELIEVE FORCE IS TO BE APPLIED IMMEDIATELY

Answer 5

C. must believe (and a reasonable person must believe) that:
> force is to be applied immediately: Thomas v National Union of Miners (South Wales Area) (1986) QBD
> D. has the capacity to apply the force immediately: Read v Coker (1853) per Jervis LCJ

Question 6

A belief can be removed by a gesture

Answer 6

It is possible that the reasonable interpretation of D.’s gestures is that force will not be applied immediately, e.g.

D. disarms before threatening to apply force: Read v Coker (1853) per Lord Jervis CJ

‘If a man comes into a room, and lays his cane on the table, and says to another “If you don’t go out, I will knock you on the head” = a threat rather than assault as he would not be able to apply force immediately as he has disarmed himself

Question 7

A belief can be removed by words

Answer 7

It is possible that the reasonable interpretation of D.’s words is that force will not be applied immediately, e.g.

Making it clear that, in the circumstances, force will not be applied immediately: Tuberville v Savage (1669):

‘If it were not Assize time I would not take such language from you’

Question 8

Giving a condition can remove a belief about immediacy

Answer 8

It is possible that the reasonable interpretation of D.’s words is that force will not be applied immediately, e.g.

If the condition is lawful, it may negate a reasonable apprehension of immediacy (e.g. ‘this club is now closed. Please leave now or our door staff will forcefully remove you from the premises’

If the condition is unlawful, it may reinforce a reasonable apprehension of immediacy, e.g R. v Ireland (1998) HL per Lord Steyn –> ‘come with me or I’ll stab you’