2. ASSAULT – s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
BATTERY – s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY
HARM (ABH) – s47 OAPA 1861
GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM (GBH) OR
WOUNDING – s20 OAPA 1861
GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM (GBH) OR
WOUNDING WITH INTENT OR INTENT TO
RESIST ARREST/PREVENT LAWFUL ARREST OF
ANOTHER – s18 OAPA 1861
3. TAKEN TOGETHER COME UNDER HEADING
“COMMON ASSAULT”
ORIGINALLY COMMON LAW OFFENCES
NOW CHARGED UNDER s39 CRIMINAL JUSTICE
ACT 1988 – SUMMARY OFFENCES
NO STATUTORY DEFINITION
CPS CODE - grazes; scratches; abrasions;
minor bruising; swellings; reddening of the
skin; superficial cuts; or a "black eye".
4. CLEAR DEFINITION SET OUT IN FAGAN v.
METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER
(1969)
◦ "an assault is committed where the defendant
intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to
apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence”
AR – APPREHEND
IMMEDIATE
UNLAWFUL
PERSONAL VIOLENCE
5. NEED NOT BE IN FEAR BUT MUST BE AWARE
THEY ARE ABOUT TO BE SUBJECTED TO
VIOLENCE – R v. LAMB (1967)
DOESN’T MATTER THAT THERE IS NO REAL
DANGER OF VIOLENCE – LOGDON v. DPP
(1976)
WORDS CAN CONSTITUTE ASSAULT – R v.
CONSTANZA (1997)
SILENCE CAN EVEN CONSTITUTE ASSAULT – R
v. IRELAND (1997)
6. THREAT OF FUTURE VIOLENCE WILL NOT
AMOUNT TO ASSAULT, BUT THE COURTS
HAVE BECOME LESS STRICT ON THIS POINT –
SMITH v. CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WOKING
(1983), CONSTANZA
7. IF YOU HAVE A LAWFUL EXCUSE THERE WILL
BE NO ASSAULT E.G.
◦ REASONABLE PUNISHMENT OF A CHILD (s58
CHILDREN ACT 2004)
◦ WHERE THE VICTIM CONSENTS
◦ WHERE THE DEFENDANT ACTS IN SELF DEFENCE
8. ONLY NEED TO APPREHEND THE LEVEL OF
FORCE REQUIRED FOR A BATTERY – ANY
TOUCHING WILL BE ENOUGH
9. INTENTIONAL
RECKLESS – R v. PARMENTER (1991)
SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS TEST APPLIES (I.E.
CUNNINGHAM RECKLESSNESS)
◦ DID THE DEFENDANT CONSCIOUSLY TAKE AN
UNJUSTIFED RISK?
10. CLEAR DEFINITION IN R v. IRELAND (1997)
◦ "unlawful application of force by the defendant
upon the victim“
AR – APPLICATION
UNLAWFUL
PHYSICAL FORCE
11. APPLICATION OF FORCE NEED NOT BE DIRECT
– DPP v. K (1990), FAGAN (1969)
12. IF YOU HAVE A LAWFUL EXCUSE THERE WILL BE
NO ASSAULT E.G.
◦ REASONABLE PUNISHMENT OF A CHILD (s58 CHILDREN
ACT 2004)
◦ WHERE THE VICTIM CONSENTS
◦ WHERE THE DEFENDANT ACTS IN SELF DEFENCE
CONSENT TO BATTERY – GOFF LJ IN COLLINS v.
WILCOCK (1984) –
◦ implied consent exists where there is jostling in crowded
places, handshakes, back slapping, tapping to gain
attention provided no more force was used than is
reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
13. ANY TOUCHING WILL DO – FAULKNER v.
TALBOT (1981)
LORD LANE:
◦ “any intentional [or reckless] touching of another
person without the consent of that person and
without lawful excuse. It need not necessarily be
hostile, rude, or aggressive”.
