Common assault and battery are summary-only offenses dealt with in magistrates' courts. Assault involves causing another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence through threats or actions, while battery involves intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force to another. Both require intent or recklessness as to causing fear of violence or applying force. Case law has established that words, gestures, or even silence can constitute assault if they cause reasonable fear of immediate unlawful force.

1. Common Assault
Common assault and common battery
S39 CJA 1988

2. Common law offences
• 2 offences
• Assault
• Battery
• Not defined by statute
• Based on case law – precedent
• Penalty and mode of trial are set by s39 Criminal Justice Act
1988
• Summary offences – Magistrates’ court
• max 6 mths
• Least serious of offences against the person
• http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/39

3. ASSAULT
• ACTUS REUS = any act which causes V to apprehend an
immediate infliction of physical violence
• MENS REA =
• an intention to cause V to apprehend unlawful and immediate
violence
• OR recklessness as to whether such apprehension be caused

4. ACTUS REUS OF ASSAULT
1. Causing V to apprehend violence
2. Immediate violence
3. Unlawful violence
• Waving a fist
• Pointing a gun / catapult / knife
• No need for physical contact – emphasis is on what V
thought was going to happen
• Threat

5. 1. Apprehension of
violence
• Logdon 1976
• D, as a joke, pointed a gun at V
• V was terrified
• Until was told it was a replica
HELD
V apprehended immediate physical violence, and D was at
least reckless as to whether or not she would be afraid

6. Lamb 1967
BAA! I’m not
scared!

7. Threatening letters
Constanza 1997

8. Meade and Belt (1823)
• Group of people sang menacing songs
• Judge held that singing could not constitute assault
• BAD LAW – OVERRULED
WORDS ALONE, EVEN SILENCE CAN
CONSTITUTE ASSAULT

9. WORDS ALONE, EVEN SILENCE
CAN CONSTITUTE ASSAULT
Smith v Chief Superintendent of
Woking Police Station 1983
• V at home, in nightdress
• Ground floor flat
• Looked out of window to see D
right up against it, staring in
HELD
D liable for assault because she feared immediate violence
even though he couldn’t get in

10. Ireland 1997
• Making repeat silent telephone calls to 3 Vs
• Caused psychiatric injury to V – apprehended immediate
application of force
• Consistent w law being developed at the time to deal w
stalkers
• Protection From Harassment Act 1997

11. Words can take away threat
Tuberville and Savage (1669)
“If it were not assize time I would not take such language”

12. 2. Immediate violence
• The violence threatened must be immediate
• A part of the current activity
• So, in Smith immediacy arose because V was behind glass
• Ireland immediacy of contact caused fear
• Query – would there be an assault if V picked up silent
telephone messages?

13. 3. Threatened violence must be
unlawful
• Not criminal for policeman to threaten to use force to restrain
someone if they do not cooperate during arrest

14. MENS REA OF ASSAULT
Intention
or subjective recklessness
either
intended to cause V to fear infliction of force
or
was aware of the risk that such fear would be
created and unreasonably took that risk

15. BATTERY
ACTUS REUS – the unlawful application of force to another
MENS REA – proof that D intentionally or recklessly applied
force to the person of another

16. ACTUS REUS OF BATTERY
• Force can be very slight – touching a person’s clothes might be
sufficient
• Typical egs are hitting someone or throwing a drink
Thomas 1985 School caretaker charged with
indecent assault after taking hold of a 12 year old’s skirt
HELD not indecent because no ev. of circ.s making it so, but crt
said there was no dispute that if you touch someone’s clothes
while he or she is wearing them that is equivalent to touching
him or her

17. Consent
Consent can make touching lawful. There is implied consent in
normal social situations
 tapping someone on the shoulder
 level of contact associated with particular sports
Battery only requires the slightest touching.
If consequences are more severe other offences
may be more appropriate

18. Force
• Force can only be applied by an act not by an omission
• so in Fagan it was essential that the AR was found to be a
continuing act, not an omission to remove the car
• Haystead 2000 D punched GF causing her to drop baby on the
floor – convicted of battery on the baby – force can be indirect

19. MENS REA OF BATTERY
• Proof that D intentionally or recklessly applied force to the
person of another
• Similar to assault except re. the consequences
Venna 1976 D and friends arrested for public order offences. D
struggled violently with arresting officer – judged to be
reckless as to whether
he caused harm

20. Understanding Check
• What is the difference between a common law and a statutory
offence?
• Distinguish between assault and battery
• AR assault?
• MR assault?
• AR battery?
• MR battery?
• Authorities?