Savage & Parmenter [1992] 1 Overview The court can convict D of a
AC 699 [1991] 3 WLR 914 lower offence than they were
charged with
Ireland [1998] AC 147 [1997] 3 Assault – apprehend Silent phone calls constituted
WLR 534 assault: D apprehended fear
through words, which was
sufficient
Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Assault – imminent Threats of violence at some
Mood Rep 3 point in the future doesn’t
constitute assault: here D said
“If it were not a size time, I
would not take such language
from you” and put his hand on
his sword
Constanza [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. Assault - imminent Interpret “imminently”
492 [1997] Crim LR 576 broadly: here D stalking and
sending V 800 letters was
assault as it caused D to
apprehend imminent unlawful
personal violence at some
point not excluding the
immediate future
Misalati [2017] EWCA 2226 Assault – unlawful personal Spitting, even if it doesn’t land
violence on V, was enough for unlawful
personal violence
Dume (1986) The Times 16 Assault – unlawful personal Unlawful personal violence can
October violence be committed indirectly as D
threatened V with his dog
Logdon v DP [1976] Crim LR Assault – the nature of the D tried to argue that as the
121 threat that D gives to V gun was fake, he didn’t intend
to carry out the assault: but it
was held that D doesn’t need
to intend to carry out the
threat
(Kracher) v Leicester Assault – the nature of the Assault was committed when
Magistrates Court [2013] threat that D gives to V D said “fuck off, if you come
EWHC 4627 (Admin) around the back, I’ll beat you
up” so the threat can be
implied or conditional
Venna [1976] QB 421 Assault – mens rea Cunningham recklessness
means you need to establish
that D foresaw a risk of their
act causing imminent unlawful
personal violence and it was
unreasonable for D to continue
to run that risk
Faulkner v Talbot [1981] 31 Battery – wide interpretation “any intentional touching of
WLR 1528 Lord Lane at 1534 of “touched or applied force to another person without the
V” consent of that person and
AC 699 [1991] 3 WLR 914 lower offence than they were
charged with
Ireland [1998] AC 147 [1997] 3 Assault – apprehend Silent phone calls constituted
WLR 534 assault: D apprehended fear
through words, which was
sufficient
Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Assault – imminent Threats of violence at some
Mood Rep 3 point in the future doesn’t
constitute assault: here D said
“If it were not a size time, I
would not take such language
from you” and put his hand on
his sword
Constanza [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. Assault - imminent Interpret “imminently”
492 [1997] Crim LR 576 broadly: here D stalking and
sending V 800 letters was
assault as it caused D to
apprehend imminent unlawful
personal violence at some
point not excluding the
immediate future
Misalati [2017] EWCA 2226 Assault – unlawful personal Spitting, even if it doesn’t land
violence on V, was enough for unlawful
personal violence
Dume (1986) The Times 16 Assault – unlawful personal Unlawful personal violence can
October violence be committed indirectly as D
threatened V with his dog
Logdon v DP [1976] Crim LR Assault – the nature of the D tried to argue that as the
121 threat that D gives to V gun was fake, he didn’t intend
to carry out the assault: but it
was held that D doesn’t need
to intend to carry out the
threat
(Kracher) v Leicester Assault – the nature of the Assault was committed when
Magistrates Court [2013] threat that D gives to V D said “fuck off, if you come
EWHC 4627 (Admin) around the back, I’ll beat you
up” so the threat can be
implied or conditional
Venna [1976] QB 421 Assault – mens rea Cunningham recklessness
means you need to establish
that D foresaw a risk of their
act causing imminent unlawful
personal violence and it was
unreasonable for D to continue
to run that risk
Faulkner v Talbot [1981] 31 Battery – wide interpretation “any intentional touching of
WLR 1528 Lord Lane at 1534 of “touched or applied force to another person without the
V” consent of that person and
