P7
Kelly has been charged with assault, under the s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. The
actus reus of assault is causing another person to fear immediate and unlawful force.
This does not require physical contact, only that the victim feels threatened. The mens
rea of assault is intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to fear the immediate
application of force. Kelly has been charged for committing an assault because she sent
a text message threatening harm to her boyfriend. Although she did not physically
contact him, the message would likely cause him to fear that she would harm him if she
could.
A case example for assault is R v Ireland 1997 where the defendant made silent
telephone calls to a woman, causing her distress. He was convicted under s47 Offences
Against the Person Act 1861 appealing argue that silence cannot amount to an assault
and that psychiatric injury is not bodily harm. The court held that silence could be an act
of assault if it caused the victim to fear immediate harm. Similarly, Kelly’s message
could have caused her boyfriend to fear immediate harm, even though there was no
physical contact.1
Neo has been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under s47
Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861. The actus reus of ABH is causing actual
bodily harm (ABH) to the victim, which includes any injury that interferes with the health
or comfort of the victim. It does not need to be a serious injury, but it must be more than
a trivial or minor injury. The mens rea of ABH is the intention or recklessness to commit
an assault or battery, which leads to the victim suffering actual bodily harm. In this
case, transferred malice applies. Transferred malice is when the defendant’s intention
or recklessness towards one victim is transferred to another victim. In this case, Neo
intended to scare Amir but ended up scaring Daisy, causing her to faint. Neo has been
charged for committing ABH because although they intended to frighten Amir, they
caused Daisy to faint, which would qualify as an injury to her health or comfort. The
fainting could be considered an injury.2
1
https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/r-v-ireland
2
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-
standard#:~:text=Section%2047%20OAPA%201861%20%E2%80%93%20maximum,actual
%20bodily%20harm%20(ABH).
Kelly has been charged with assault, under the s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. The
actus reus of assault is causing another person to fear immediate and unlawful force.
This does not require physical contact, only that the victim feels threatened. The mens
rea of assault is intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to fear the immediate
application of force. Kelly has been charged for committing an assault because she sent
a text message threatening harm to her boyfriend. Although she did not physically
contact him, the message would likely cause him to fear that she would harm him if she
could.
A case example for assault is R v Ireland 1997 where the defendant made silent
telephone calls to a woman, causing her distress. He was convicted under s47 Offences
Against the Person Act 1861 appealing argue that silence cannot amount to an assault
and that psychiatric injury is not bodily harm. The court held that silence could be an act
of assault if it caused the victim to fear immediate harm. Similarly, Kelly’s message
could have caused her boyfriend to fear immediate harm, even though there was no
physical contact.1
Neo has been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under s47
Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861. The actus reus of ABH is causing actual
bodily harm (ABH) to the victim, which includes any injury that interferes with the health
or comfort of the victim. It does not need to be a serious injury, but it must be more than
a trivial or minor injury. The mens rea of ABH is the intention or recklessness to commit
an assault or battery, which leads to the victim suffering actual bodily harm. In this
case, transferred malice applies. Transferred malice is when the defendant’s intention
or recklessness towards one victim is transferred to another victim. In this case, Neo
intended to scare Amir but ended up scaring Daisy, causing her to faint. Neo has been
charged for committing ABH because although they intended to frighten Amir, they
caused Daisy to faint, which would qualify as an injury to her health or comfort. The
fainting could be considered an injury.2
1
https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/r-v-ireland
2
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-
standard#:~:text=Section%2047%20OAPA%201861%20%E2%80%93%20maximum,actual
%20bodily%20harm%20(ABH).
