Hierarchy of Offences:
Start off with the basic offences of common assault or battery (S39 of the Criminal
Justice Act 1988)
Layer on top with the level of harm they caused going from assault occasioning ABH,
malicious wounding/inflicting GBH then intentional wounding/GBH with intent
Common Assault and Battery:
This is the least serious offence
S39 of the CJA states them
They are 2 separate offences but are often charged together, not always though
DPP v Taylor [1992] WB 645
In the information sheet (document in court) that they were being charged
with assault and battery
Judge said it was bad for duplicity as they are 2 separate offences and the
case was dropped
R (Kracher) v Leicester Magistrates Court [2013] EWHC 4627 (Admin)
He was found guilty of an offence that wasn’t in the information document for
the court
He was taken to court for assault by beating and he was charged with
common assault, he appealed on the basis that he can’t be taken to court for
one thing and charged with another as there is no time to contest that charge
without knowledge that was a potential charge
On appeal the case was thrown out
Common Assault:
S39 of the CJA 1988 states that common assault and battery shall be summary
offences and a person guilty of either of them shall be liable to a fine of up to level 5
on the standard scale, and/or imprisonment for up to 6 months
This is not a definition of it it’s purely just a statutory recognition of the common law
offence
It’s definition comes from case law
It is frequently charged together with battery but not always
AR of Common Assault:
The definition of common assault in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1172 is ‘An
assault is an act that causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate,
unlawful force on his person.’
Basically common assault is the act of causing fear of immediate danger in someone,
no physical altercation has to happen
The AR of this is:
causing apprehension + immediacy + unlawful violence
The Act Causing Apprehension:
, it cannot be an omission to act
However Fagan v Met Police Commissioner [1968] 3 W.L.R. 1120 said that it
was at it was a continuing act so he was found liable but this isn’t the normal
position
What of the perception of the victim?
In Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981 he pulled the trigger at a friend when they were
both under the impression that it had no bullets but they were unaware of how
a revolver worked and it killed him
He wasn’t found liable as he didn’t create fear or apprehension in the victim
so there was no AR
What if it’s the incorrect perception?
Logdon v DPP [1976] Crim LR 121 was a case where he pulled out a gun on
a women but it was a fake
It was decided that even though it was a fake, it caused apprehension in the
victim which completes the AR
Even if they know the gun was a fake, if it causes apprehension then they are
liable
What if the act is contradicted by words?
Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3 was a case where he had his hand
on a sword but at the same time said he wasn’t going to do anything
It was decided that the words spoken contradicted his act enough and so the
apprehension in his victim was not validly subjected to an act that caused
apprehension as the words negated the act
Negate apprehension from words spoken?
Words weren’t enough in the Light (1857) D & B 332 case to negate the
apprehension he caused
He had held a sword over someone's head and said if the police officer
wasn’t outside then he would cut his head off
The words he said didn’t negate what his actions were saying so he was
liable
Difference between the 2 cases were the position of the sword, the sword in
it’s holt is not particularly scary where as the sword over the head is enough
Are Words Sufficient to be an Act That Causes Apprehension?
Can mere words be an act?
In Mead and Belt (1823) 1 Lew CC 184 the judge said that ‘no words or
singing are equivalent to an assault’
Read v Coker (1853) 138 E.R. 1437 was a similar case but where the judge
said that the words were enough to make it an act as he rolled his sleeves up
at the same
The law moved on
What about written word?
In Constanza [1997] Crim LR 576 a woman was sent over 800 written letters
of a threatening nature and it was decided that words were enough to be an
act causing apprehension
The defence was that words were not sufficient but they decided it was
Harassment case
What about silence?
The case for this is a joint case, 2 cases with such similar facts they are
together as a judgment
Start off with the basic offences of common assault or battery (S39 of the Criminal
Justice Act 1988)
Layer on top with the level of harm they caused going from assault occasioning ABH,
malicious wounding/inflicting GBH then intentional wounding/GBH with intent
Common Assault and Battery:
This is the least serious offence
S39 of the CJA states them
They are 2 separate offences but are often charged together, not always though
DPP v Taylor [1992] WB 645
In the information sheet (document in court) that they were being charged
with assault and battery
Judge said it was bad for duplicity as they are 2 separate offences and the
case was dropped
R (Kracher) v Leicester Magistrates Court [2013] EWHC 4627 (Admin)
He was found guilty of an offence that wasn’t in the information document for
the court
He was taken to court for assault by beating and he was charged with
common assault, he appealed on the basis that he can’t be taken to court for
one thing and charged with another as there is no time to contest that charge
without knowledge that was a potential charge
On appeal the case was thrown out
Common Assault:
S39 of the CJA 1988 states that common assault and battery shall be summary
offences and a person guilty of either of them shall be liable to a fine of up to level 5
on the standard scale, and/or imprisonment for up to 6 months
This is not a definition of it it’s purely just a statutory recognition of the common law
offence
It’s definition comes from case law
It is frequently charged together with battery but not always
AR of Common Assault:
The definition of common assault in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1172 is ‘An
assault is an act that causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate,
unlawful force on his person.’
Basically common assault is the act of causing fear of immediate danger in someone,
no physical altercation has to happen
The AR of this is:
causing apprehension + immediacy + unlawful violence
The Act Causing Apprehension:
, it cannot be an omission to act
However Fagan v Met Police Commissioner [1968] 3 W.L.R. 1120 said that it
was at it was a continuing act so he was found liable but this isn’t the normal
position
What of the perception of the victim?
In Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981 he pulled the trigger at a friend when they were
both under the impression that it had no bullets but they were unaware of how
a revolver worked and it killed him
He wasn’t found liable as he didn’t create fear or apprehension in the victim
so there was no AR
What if it’s the incorrect perception?
Logdon v DPP [1976] Crim LR 121 was a case where he pulled out a gun on
a women but it was a fake
It was decided that even though it was a fake, it caused apprehension in the
victim which completes the AR
Even if they know the gun was a fake, if it causes apprehension then they are
liable
What if the act is contradicted by words?
Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3 was a case where he had his hand
on a sword but at the same time said he wasn’t going to do anything
It was decided that the words spoken contradicted his act enough and so the
apprehension in his victim was not validly subjected to an act that caused
apprehension as the words negated the act
Negate apprehension from words spoken?
Words weren’t enough in the Light (1857) D & B 332 case to negate the
apprehension he caused
He had held a sword over someone's head and said if the police officer
wasn’t outside then he would cut his head off
The words he said didn’t negate what his actions were saying so he was
liable
Difference between the 2 cases were the position of the sword, the sword in
it’s holt is not particularly scary where as the sword over the head is enough
Are Words Sufficient to be an Act That Causes Apprehension?
Can mere words be an act?
In Mead and Belt (1823) 1 Lew CC 184 the judge said that ‘no words or
singing are equivalent to an assault’
Read v Coker (1853) 138 E.R. 1437 was a similar case but where the judge
said that the words were enough to make it an act as he rolled his sleeves up
at the same
The law moved on
What about written word?
In Constanza [1997] Crim LR 576 a woman was sent over 800 written letters
of a threatening nature and it was decided that words were enough to be an
act causing apprehension
The defence was that words were not sufficient but they decided it was
Harassment case
What about silence?
The case for this is a joint case, 2 cases with such similar facts they are
together as a judgment
