Non-Fatal Offences
“Common assault” means both assault and battery - two separate offences
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.39 Assault:
S.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Mode of trial – summary
Max punishment – 6 months imprisonment and/or £5000 fine
Max punishment racially and religiously aggravated - 2 years imprisonment
Definition:
An act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to fear or apprehend the infliction of
immediate, unlawful force on his person. (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1969)
AR:
Making the victim apprehend immediate and unlawful force
Making the V apprehend immediate unlawful force
Wilson – “Get out the knives” – words suffice
R v Venna – definition
Smith – stalking in the tree
Ireland – silent telephone calls
Constanza – stalker
Santana-Bermudez – needle
Can be through acts or words (verbal or written) or silence – no physical contact between D and V is
required
OMISSION is not sufficient
Words alone suffice – however this wasn’t always the case – in Meade and Belt 1823 words alone
did not suffice. In R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534 it was held that silent telephone calls to v amounted
to an assault. In Ireland, D made threatening phone calls – but in silence, did not say anything, heavy
breathing, which led the v to fear serious violence. The HoL decided in this case the even silence can
suffice.
Words can negate an assault – this happens when words indicate that there will be no violence e.g.
Tuberville v Savage (1669) – they had swords and basically said if it weren’t for the justices of assize
in town he would’ve struck him with the sword, and Read v Coker (1853), where D threatened to
break plaintiff’s neck if he did not leave the premise.
Letters – R v Constanza (1997) Crim LR 576 – D led hate campaign against ex-colleague over 20
month period – sent over 800 threatening letters, follow her home, wrote offensive words on front
, door, drove past her house, stole items from washing line. Led to V suffering from clinical
depression. Held: charged with assault occasioning ABH. D argued that the letters did not suffice
because there was no immediacy of unlawful violence, however it was held that that immediacy was
present. This includes e-mails and texts. Logdon v DPP 1976 – pointed a fake gun at a woman who
got scared.
Immediacy – v must believe that they are going to be subject to immediate violence. Immediate
does not mean instantaneous (not there and then), but actually means imminent. Immediate can
include looking through a closed window – Smith v Woking Police 1983 – was watching a girl undress
through a window = argued that she could not have apprehended immediate force or violence as
she was inside the house and he was inside, his conviction was upheld.
What if it is obvious that D cannot use excessive force e.g. where D shouts from a passing train?
In Constanza (letters) and Ireland (words) Ds argued that there was no immediacy of unlawful
violence. However, in both these cases it was held that there was immediacy as the victims thought
something could happen at any time in the immediate future. These cases show what the victims’
interpretation of apprehension would be.
Other examples include:
Raising an arm as if to strike someone
Pointing a knife in V’s Face
Shouting threats of violence at a person
By sending a threatening text message or letter
Making threats over the phone
Making silent telephone calls to the victim
Apprehending immediate and unlawful force – victim must believe that they are going to be subject
to immediate unlawful violence.
Apprehend can mean both fearing violence and anticipating violence, HOWEVER the prosecution
does not have to prove the former. Logdon v DPP (1976) - pointed a fake gun at a woman who got
scared.
MR:
Intentionally or recklessly making the victim apprehend immediate unlawful force
Direct intent – Mohan – aim/objective/purpose and desire to carry it out. It is D’s aim, objective or
purpose to cause somebody to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence.
Indirect intent – Woollin (Nedrick was the old case)– virtual certainty test – was the consequence a
virtual certainty and did the d foresee this. Is it virtually certain the Ds conduct will cause somebody
to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence and D is aware of this.
“Common assault” means both assault and battery - two separate offences
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.39 Assault:
S.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Mode of trial – summary
Max punishment – 6 months imprisonment and/or £5000 fine
Max punishment racially and religiously aggravated - 2 years imprisonment
Definition:
An act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to fear or apprehend the infliction of
immediate, unlawful force on his person. (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1969)
AR:
Making the victim apprehend immediate and unlawful force
Making the V apprehend immediate unlawful force
Wilson – “Get out the knives” – words suffice
R v Venna – definition
Smith – stalking in the tree
Ireland – silent telephone calls
Constanza – stalker
Santana-Bermudez – needle
Can be through acts or words (verbal or written) or silence – no physical contact between D and V is
required
OMISSION is not sufficient
Words alone suffice – however this wasn’t always the case – in Meade and Belt 1823 words alone
did not suffice. In R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534 it was held that silent telephone calls to v amounted
to an assault. In Ireland, D made threatening phone calls – but in silence, did not say anything, heavy
breathing, which led the v to fear serious violence. The HoL decided in this case the even silence can
suffice.
Words can negate an assault – this happens when words indicate that there will be no violence e.g.
Tuberville v Savage (1669) – they had swords and basically said if it weren’t for the justices of assize
in town he would’ve struck him with the sword, and Read v Coker (1853), where D threatened to
break plaintiff’s neck if he did not leave the premise.
Letters – R v Constanza (1997) Crim LR 576 – D led hate campaign against ex-colleague over 20
month period – sent over 800 threatening letters, follow her home, wrote offensive words on front
, door, drove past her house, stole items from washing line. Led to V suffering from clinical
depression. Held: charged with assault occasioning ABH. D argued that the letters did not suffice
because there was no immediacy of unlawful violence, however it was held that that immediacy was
present. This includes e-mails and texts. Logdon v DPP 1976 – pointed a fake gun at a woman who
got scared.
Immediacy – v must believe that they are going to be subject to immediate violence. Immediate
does not mean instantaneous (not there and then), but actually means imminent. Immediate can
include looking through a closed window – Smith v Woking Police 1983 – was watching a girl undress
through a window = argued that she could not have apprehended immediate force or violence as
she was inside the house and he was inside, his conviction was upheld.
What if it is obvious that D cannot use excessive force e.g. where D shouts from a passing train?
In Constanza (letters) and Ireland (words) Ds argued that there was no immediacy of unlawful
violence. However, in both these cases it was held that there was immediacy as the victims thought
something could happen at any time in the immediate future. These cases show what the victims’
interpretation of apprehension would be.
Other examples include:
Raising an arm as if to strike someone
Pointing a knife in V’s Face
Shouting threats of violence at a person
By sending a threatening text message or letter
Making threats over the phone
Making silent telephone calls to the victim
Apprehending immediate and unlawful force – victim must believe that they are going to be subject
to immediate unlawful violence.
Apprehend can mean both fearing violence and anticipating violence, HOWEVER the prosecution
does not have to prove the former. Logdon v DPP (1976) - pointed a fake gun at a woman who got
scared.
MR:
Intentionally or recklessly making the victim apprehend immediate unlawful force
Direct intent – Mohan – aim/objective/purpose and desire to carry it out. It is D’s aim, objective or
purpose to cause somebody to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence.
Indirect intent – Woollin (Nedrick was the old case)– virtual certainty test – was the consequence a
virtual certainty and did the d foresee this. Is it virtually certain the Ds conduct will cause somebody
to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence and D is aware of this.
