1. Assault Learning Objectives Define Assault
Explain the Actus Reus and Mens Rea of assault
Analyse case law on assault

2. “Common Assault” Assault and Battery are 2 separate offences
One can be committed without the other
Together they are called “common assault”
Both common law offences
But they are recognised in Statute - S.39 Criminal Justice Act – states they are both summary offences with a maximum sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment or a fine.

3. Assault - Definition
Ireland – D intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence

4. Assault – Actus Reus An act Causing the victim To apprehend
Immediate and
Unlawful violence
This means to satisfy the AR, we need to consider 5 separate points

5. 1. Actus Reus – “An act” Cannot be an omission
Can be actions, gestures, words or silence
E.g. waving a knife, a gesture like running a finger across your throat
Constanza – written words alone are enough for an assault – D stalked V and content of letters was an assault as V read them as threats – therefore other written communications like s and texts can also constitute assault
Ireland – words are enough for an assault
Ireland – Silence can amount to an assault - silent telephone calls
Tuberville v Savage – words can also prevent an assault if they indicate D is not intending to cause the harm

6. 2. Actus Reus - “Cause”
Apply usual rules of causation

7. 3. Actus Reus - “Apprehend”
No need for any physical contact between D and V – it is about what V thought was about to happen
Don’t need fear – just apprehension – expectation or anticipation
If V doesn’t apprehend immediate force, assault has not been committed - Lamb – if other person does not expect violence there can be no assault – 2 friends playing with a gun, one man shot by the other but no assault as the shot man had not appreciated that the gun would go off
Doesn’t matter if D made his threat as a joke if V believed him – Logdon – D, as a joke, pointed a gun at V who was terrified until she was told that it was in fact a replica. Court held that V had apprehended physical violence

8. 4. Actus Reus - “Immediate”
Quite a wide interpretation of this
Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station – “peeping Tom” looked through V’s bedroom window at night. She apprehended immediate and unlawful personal violence even though he was outside – immediate does not need to be instantaneous
Ireland – Silent telephone calls - V held to be in fear of immediate personal violence as she could not know exactly where D was when making the phone-call

9. 5. Actus Reus – “Unlawful Violence or force”
V does not need to apprehend any injury, pain or harm
Force apprehended can be a mere touch, provided it is unwanted
Must be unlawful – usually due to lack of consent
E.g. police officer threatening to handcuff someone or restrain them if they don’t co-operate is not assault

10. Mens Rea
Matches the AR - DO NOT need to intend carrying out the actual violence – only making V apprehend it
Savage:
Intention to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence; or
Recklessness as to whether the victim apprehends unlawful and immediate violence
Can be direct or indirect (oblique) intent
Recklessness is Cunningham recklessness – D must realise that his acts or words could cause V to apprehend violence

11. Answering Questions on Assault
Was there an act? What was it?
Did the act:
Cause (normal causation rules)
V to apprehend
Immediate
Unlawful violence/force?
Was there intention or recklessness to cause V to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence