Page 1 of 2

Copyright Revision Master 2015 revisionmaster.co.uk

This is a free sample from revisionmaster.co.uk, licensed for all non-commercial purposes. You may read,
study, print and share this document subject to it being referenced as being the work of Revision Master
when shared.

1. Assault

An assault is committed when the accused intentionally, or recklessly,

causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal
violence - common law offence Fagan v MPC
Definition confirmed by House of Lords in R v Ireland; Burstow
Charged contrary to s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which, in
assuming the existence of this common law offence, prescribes the
procedure and penalties for dealing with the offence.

1.1 ACTUS REUS

(a) There must be apprehension of personal violence

The defendant must cause the victim to believe he can and will carry out the
threat of force R v Lamb.
If the victim is caused to apprehend such a threat, it is irrelevant that the
defendant does not in fact have the means to carry out that threat Logdon v
DPP.

(b) Which must be unlawful

The conduct of the defendant will be deemed lawful if acting on self defence
or the defence of another, if the conduct is consented to, or if the use of force
is for the reasonable and lawful chastisement of a child or in order to effect a
lawful arrest

(c) It may be committed by words alone

Words may amount to an assault as can silence R v Irland; Burstow

Words can also negate an assault Tuberville v Savage
Note: this ultimately depends on whether the victim apprehended immediate
unlawful personal violence.

(d) The threat must be immediate

The victim must believe that immediate violence will be inflicted upon him,
therefore fear that the force might be applied sometime in the future would be
insufficient. However the courts have developed a rather generous
interpretation of immediacy.
Definition of personal violence: for an assault, the victim must apprehend
physical violence. If the threat is immediate psychological harm, charges
under other statutes, such as Protection from Harassment Act 1997 would be
more suitable

Page 2 of 2

1.2 MENS REA- Whether the accused intentionally or recklessly causes the
victim to apprehend immediate personal violence.
(a) Intention

R v Venna - Court held an assault can be committed intentionally or

recklessly.

R v Maloney - Was it the accuseds aim or purpose to commit the actus reus?

(b) Recklessness
As per R v Venna, the type of recklessness applicable is defined in R v Cunningham
- An objectively unreasonable risk of causing the victim to apprehend violence? Then
must prove the accused was subjectively aware of his actions.
Venna was in the process of being arrested, he lashed out and one of the officers got
their hand broken. Trial judge directed he could be convicted if he simply lashed out
recklessly not caring if he hit anyone or not. This was upheld- risk of injury and no
social utility.

R v Savage; Parmenter - Savage went into pub, saw an enemy and picked up
pint glass of beer and said nice to see you darling; then threw beer in womans
face. Glass slipped out of hand, broke on table and some glass cut other
womans hand. Woman suffered only minor injuries. Court held even though
she did not intend to cause the injury, nevertheless, she was reckless.