Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person
Assault
- Summary offence charged contrary to s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
• DPP v Taylor and Little [1992] held that assault and battery is statutory offence, although obiter
in Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000] referred to battery as common law offence
- Any act which, intentionally or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and
unlawful personal violence (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969])
- Actus reus
• Causing another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
• Subjectively assessed
• Apprehension
• No assault if V does not apprehend immediate personal violence (Lamb [1967])
• V must have perceived conduct and/or words which cause apprehension, meaning they have to
see or hear D’s conduct or words against them, although there are exceptions where silent phone
calls amount to assault
• V does not need to suffer violence from D
• Logdon v DPP [1976]
• D opened drawer and showed V replica pistol, telling V that it was loaded when asked, and
said he would kidnap V
• Assault occurred when D puled out pistol and told V it was real, without any physical
violence needed
• Fear from V not necessary
• Unlawful
• Conduct might be lawful if acting in self-defence, conduct is consented to, using lawful degree
of force to chastise their child, or to effect lawful arrest
• Assault by words or silence
• Law on assault using words deemed inequivalent to assault in Meade and Belt [1823], but law
was settled in Ireland [1998]
• D made repeated silent phone calls (some with heavy breathing) to 3 women for 3 months at
night
• Women suffered psychiatric illness as a result, so D charged with 3 counts of assault
occasioning ABH contrary to s.47 OAPA 1861
• Held that that repeated phone calls of this nature could be expected to cause a victim to
apprehend immediate and unlawful violence
• Words can negate assault if D says he will not hurt V (Tuberville v Savage [1669]), unless D’s
actions say otherwise (R v Light [1857])
• Immediacy
• Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking [1983]
• D was looking through V’s bedroom window from outside
• Held that D committed assault because V apprehended immediate violence because she did
not know what he was going to do next, and could potentially have wanted to hurt her
• Immediate force does not mean instantaneous, but imminent
• Constanza [1997]
• D followed V home from work, sent her 800 letters, and sat outside her home during early
hours
• Held that there would be assault ‘at some point not excluding the immediate future’
• Positive act
, • Assault cannot be committed via omission
• Fagan [1969]
• Created ‘continuing act’ theory
• DPP v Santa-Bermudez [2003]
• Used Miller principle and held that liability for omission can arise if D exposes another to a
reasonably foreseeable risk of injury and does not avert danger
- Mens rea
• Intention or recklessness (recklessness confirmed by Venna [1976])
• Subjective standard of recklessness is applied to non-fatal offences (Spratt [1990]), overruling
objective Caldwell test
Battery
- Summary offence charged contrary to s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
- Committed if D intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful force on another person (Collins v
Wilcock [1984])
- Actus reus
• Infliction of unlawful force on another person
• Force
• Actual application of physics force to V required (Nelson [2013])
• V does not need to apprehend violence before it occurs for D to have committed battery
• Only minimal force required
• Whether hostility is required is debated:
• Cole v Turner [1705] — least touching of another in anger sufficient
• Faulkner v Talbot [1981] — contact need not be hostile or aggressive
• Brown [1994] — HoL suggested hostility is required
• Underlying principle (according to Collins v Wilcock) is that the law protects against
unwanted physical contact, not just harmful or hostile contact
• Strangulation/suffocation offence (s.75A SCA 2015):
• Covers intentional strangulation or acts affecting breathing, even without injury.
• Consent is a defence only where no serious harm is caused.
• Battery does not require injury, but CPS guidance says minor injuries (grazes, small bruises,
cuts, redness, etc.) usually fall under common assault/battery.
• Unlawful
• Lawful when police is conducting arrest, child is being given reasonable punishment, being
used in self-defence or preventing crime
• Consent is defence to battery
• The exigencies of physical contact of everyday life does not amount to battery, unless it goes
beyond acceptable standards (Collins v Wilcock [1984])
• Police officer took hold of Collins’ arm and she scratched him for it and she was arrested for
assaulting police in execution of their duty
• Collins argued that officer grabbing her went beyond her execution of her duty, but courts
disagreed
• Direct or indirect application of force
• D does not need to directly touch V with their own body to commit a battery
• Thomas [1985]
• D touched bottom of woman’s skirt and rubbed it, which amounted to battery
• DPP v K [1990]
• D took sulphuric acid to toilets to test it with toilet paper
Assault
- Summary offence charged contrary to s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
• DPP v Taylor and Little [1992] held that assault and battery is statutory offence, although obiter
in Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000] referred to battery as common law offence
- Any act which, intentionally or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and
unlawful personal violence (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969])
- Actus reus
• Causing another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
• Subjectively assessed
• Apprehension
• No assault if V does not apprehend immediate personal violence (Lamb [1967])
• V must have perceived conduct and/or words which cause apprehension, meaning they have to
see or hear D’s conduct or words against them, although there are exceptions where silent phone
calls amount to assault
• V does not need to suffer violence from D
• Logdon v DPP [1976]
• D opened drawer and showed V replica pistol, telling V that it was loaded when asked, and
said he would kidnap V
• Assault occurred when D puled out pistol and told V it was real, without any physical
violence needed
• Fear from V not necessary
• Unlawful
• Conduct might be lawful if acting in self-defence, conduct is consented to, using lawful degree
of force to chastise their child, or to effect lawful arrest
• Assault by words or silence
• Law on assault using words deemed inequivalent to assault in Meade and Belt [1823], but law
was settled in Ireland [1998]
• D made repeated silent phone calls (some with heavy breathing) to 3 women for 3 months at
night
• Women suffered psychiatric illness as a result, so D charged with 3 counts of assault
occasioning ABH contrary to s.47 OAPA 1861
• Held that that repeated phone calls of this nature could be expected to cause a victim to
apprehend immediate and unlawful violence
• Words can negate assault if D says he will not hurt V (Tuberville v Savage [1669]), unless D’s
actions say otherwise (R v Light [1857])
• Immediacy
• Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking [1983]
• D was looking through V’s bedroom window from outside
• Held that D committed assault because V apprehended immediate violence because she did
not know what he was going to do next, and could potentially have wanted to hurt her
• Immediate force does not mean instantaneous, but imminent
• Constanza [1997]
• D followed V home from work, sent her 800 letters, and sat outside her home during early
hours
• Held that there would be assault ‘at some point not excluding the immediate future’
• Positive act
, • Assault cannot be committed via omission
• Fagan [1969]
• Created ‘continuing act’ theory
• DPP v Santa-Bermudez [2003]
• Used Miller principle and held that liability for omission can arise if D exposes another to a
reasonably foreseeable risk of injury and does not avert danger
- Mens rea
• Intention or recklessness (recklessness confirmed by Venna [1976])
• Subjective standard of recklessness is applied to non-fatal offences (Spratt [1990]), overruling
objective Caldwell test
Battery
- Summary offence charged contrary to s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
- Committed if D intentionally or recklessly inflicts unlawful force on another person (Collins v
Wilcock [1984])
- Actus reus
• Infliction of unlawful force on another person
• Force
• Actual application of physics force to V required (Nelson [2013])
• V does not need to apprehend violence before it occurs for D to have committed battery
• Only minimal force required
• Whether hostility is required is debated:
• Cole v Turner [1705] — least touching of another in anger sufficient
• Faulkner v Talbot [1981] — contact need not be hostile or aggressive
• Brown [1994] — HoL suggested hostility is required
• Underlying principle (according to Collins v Wilcock) is that the law protects against
unwanted physical contact, not just harmful or hostile contact
• Strangulation/suffocation offence (s.75A SCA 2015):
• Covers intentional strangulation or acts affecting breathing, even without injury.
• Consent is a defence only where no serious harm is caused.
• Battery does not require injury, but CPS guidance says minor injuries (grazes, small bruises,
cuts, redness, etc.) usually fall under common assault/battery.
• Unlawful
• Lawful when police is conducting arrest, child is being given reasonable punishment, being
used in self-defence or preventing crime
• Consent is defence to battery
• The exigencies of physical contact of everyday life does not amount to battery, unless it goes
beyond acceptable standards (Collins v Wilcock [1984])
• Police officer took hold of Collins’ arm and she scratched him for it and she was arrested for
assaulting police in execution of their duty
• Collins argued that officer grabbing her went beyond her execution of her duty, but courts
disagreed
• Direct or indirect application of force
• D does not need to directly touch V with their own body to commit a battery
• Thomas [1985]
• D touched bottom of woman’s skirt and rubbed it, which amounted to battery
• DPP v K [1990]
• D took sulphuric acid to toilets to test it with toilet paper
