Week 13 tutorial: Non-fatal offences against the person
The various non-fatal offences can be separated into two categories, result-focused and conduct-
focused.
The offences in the first category are defined in relation to the degree of harm suffered by V.
a) Wounding with intent to cause GBH, or causing GBH with intent.
b) Maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH
c) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
d) Assault and battery
The second category is conduct-focused. Although offences in this category are still concerned
with D causing harm, they are equally concerned with the manner in which that harm is inflicted.
Assault and battery
Many of the offences in the first category are defined in the Offences Against the Person Act
(OAPA) 1861.
The offences of assault and battery are not defined statute. The power to charge them derives
from section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Assault
An assault involves any conduct by D that, intentionally or recklessly, causes V to apprehend
imminent unlawful personal violence.
Battery
Is any conduct by which D, intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful person violence upon V.
Actus reus of assault
The legal definition of assault does not require D to make any physical conduct with V.
The actus reus of assault is satisfied as soon as D causes V to apprehend or believe that V is
about to suffer some personal violence. It is concerned with the impact of D’s conduct on V.
e.g If D acts in a manner that would usually cause another to apprehend unlawful violence, as for
example, where she drives at V or motions to strike V, but V does not apprehend imminent
violence, perhaps because V is asleep or knows that D is bluffing, then no assault is committed.
A) What do we mean by ‘unlawful personal violence’? It includes any non-consensual contact.
Thus, although the apprehension of some such contact is require, V need not believe that the
‘violence’ would be serious or cause injury. It is not sufficient, for example, that D causes V fear
in a general sense by, say, watching a scary film: V must specifically be caused to apprehend
the imminent application of force.
B) How imminent must V believe the violence will be? V must be caused to fear immediate or
imminent unlawful personal violence. Threats of violence at some non-imminent point in the
future will not constitute an assault. The distinction between imminent violence, which satisfies
the actus reus, and non-imminent violence, which does not, is central to liability. The courts
have applied a part subjective and a part objective approach.
• Subjective: in order to establish the nature of the threat from D, the law focuses on the facts as
V believes or is caused to believe them to be.
e.g If D points an unloaded gun at V, causing V to believe that she is about to be shot, then D has
completed the actus reus of assault.
• Objective: although the facts are established from what V is caused to believe, the question of
whether this belief amounts to an apprehension of imminent violence remains an objective one
for the courts.
e.g If V is caused to believe she will be shot in one hour, whether this is imminent will be a question
for the court. The tendency of the court has been to interpret the requirement of imminence very
broadly, allowing for liability even where V knows that the threat will inevitably involve some delay.
This approach has been adopted consistently by the courts as illustrated in Constanza.
The various non-fatal offences can be separated into two categories, result-focused and conduct-
focused.
The offences in the first category are defined in relation to the degree of harm suffered by V.
a) Wounding with intent to cause GBH, or causing GBH with intent.
b) Maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH
c) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
d) Assault and battery
The second category is conduct-focused. Although offences in this category are still concerned
with D causing harm, they are equally concerned with the manner in which that harm is inflicted.
Assault and battery
Many of the offences in the first category are defined in the Offences Against the Person Act
(OAPA) 1861.
The offences of assault and battery are not defined statute. The power to charge them derives
from section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Assault
An assault involves any conduct by D that, intentionally or recklessly, causes V to apprehend
imminent unlawful personal violence.
Battery
Is any conduct by which D, intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful person violence upon V.
Actus reus of assault
The legal definition of assault does not require D to make any physical conduct with V.
The actus reus of assault is satisfied as soon as D causes V to apprehend or believe that V is
about to suffer some personal violence. It is concerned with the impact of D’s conduct on V.
e.g If D acts in a manner that would usually cause another to apprehend unlawful violence, as for
example, where she drives at V or motions to strike V, but V does not apprehend imminent
violence, perhaps because V is asleep or knows that D is bluffing, then no assault is committed.
A) What do we mean by ‘unlawful personal violence’? It includes any non-consensual contact.
Thus, although the apprehension of some such contact is require, V need not believe that the
‘violence’ would be serious or cause injury. It is not sufficient, for example, that D causes V fear
in a general sense by, say, watching a scary film: V must specifically be caused to apprehend
the imminent application of force.
B) How imminent must V believe the violence will be? V must be caused to fear immediate or
imminent unlawful personal violence. Threats of violence at some non-imminent point in the
future will not constitute an assault. The distinction between imminent violence, which satisfies
the actus reus, and non-imminent violence, which does not, is central to liability. The courts
have applied a part subjective and a part objective approach.
• Subjective: in order to establish the nature of the threat from D, the law focuses on the facts as
V believes or is caused to believe them to be.
e.g If D points an unloaded gun at V, causing V to believe that she is about to be shot, then D has
completed the actus reus of assault.
• Objective: although the facts are established from what V is caused to believe, the question of
whether this belief amounts to an apprehension of imminent violence remains an objective one
for the courts.
e.g If V is caused to believe she will be shot in one hour, whether this is imminent will be a question
for the court. The tendency of the court has been to interpret the requirement of imminence very
broadly, allowing for liability even where V knows that the threat will inevitably involve some delay.
This approach has been adopted consistently by the courts as illustrated in Constanza.
