Criminal Law - Simple Assault - Flashcards in University Law

Classic Definition of simple assault drawn from Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1961] 1 GB 439

Any act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal force.

1 of 18

Relevant legislation for simple assault

s39 of Criminal Jutice Act

2 of 18

Penalty for simple assault

Maximum of six months' imprisonment

3 of 18

Actus Reus of Simple Assault

Causing apprehension immediate unlawful personal force, i.e. victim must think he is about unlawfully touched.

4 of 18

What should not appear in your answer regarding Actus Reus of Simple Assault?

Intentionally and recklessly as thye are mens rea concepts.

5 of 18

Does size of defendant affect Actus Reus?

No. Actus reus only requires victim to apprehend force, i.e. be aware of it. Doesn't have to fear it in sense of being frightened or afraid. As long as victim thinks they'll be unlawfully touched.

6 of 18

Significance of House of Lords statement regarding words in R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534

Clearly stated words alone can amount to assault and can be far more intimidating than actions. Ended dispute over whether words were sufficient without other gesture.

7 of 18

Which case and which judge is responsible

Lord Steyn in R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534

8 of 18

Lord Steyn on why silent telephone calls amount to assault. Words alone could amont to assault as a thing said was also a thing done. (1 of 3)

No reason why something said should be incapable of causing apprehension of immediate unlawful personal force. If words were not assault, hard to see how silence could be.

9 of 18

Lord Steyn on why silent telephone calls amount to assault. (2 of 3)

'depending on the facts'. Silent caller by silence intends to cause fear and he's understood. Fear may dominate victim's emotions and fear possibility of immediate unlawful personal force.

10 of 18

Lord Steyn on why silent telephone calls amount to assault. (3 of 3)

Depends on impact of caller's potentially menacing call(s) on victim. One call may not be enough but pattern would be.

11 of 18

Immediate force

Must be immediate force to count as simple assault.

12 of 18

Significance of R v Burstow [1997] 4 AII ER 225

It is sufficient victim fears force could occur immediately. Defendant stalked victim over number of years, sending photographs and letters, telephoning and visiting home. Court held if victim feared defendant could strike anytime, AC of SA fulfilled.

13 of 18

Conditional threats - e.g. 'If you don't stop talking, I'll slap you'.

Law takes view imposition on victim of threat is and unjustified restriction on his personal liberty is unwarranted and defendant should still be liable for assault. Assumes conditional force requirement also fulfilled.

14 of 18

Relevant case for conditional threats

Read v Coker (1953) 13 CB 850

15 of 18

Mens rea of simple assault

If defendant must intend to cause victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force, or be reckless as to whether such apprehension be caused.

16 of 18

What is the relevant case to mens rea of simple assault?

R v Venna [1976] QB 421

17 of 18

Test fofr recklessness in relation to simple assault (according to R v Spratt [1991] 2 AII ER 210).

Defendant must foresee risk victim will apprehend immidiate unlawful personal force and go on to take that risk. Irrelevant if most people could foresee the risk if the defendant didn't. Defendant entitled to acquittal.

18 of 18

Get Revising

Criminal Law - Simple Assault

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources: