Briefly outline the law relating to assault

The law relating to non-fatal offences against the person is to be found in the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

Grade: A-C | £0.00.

The law relating to non-fatal offences against the person is to be found in the Offences against the Person Act 1861.


An assault (sometimes referred to as common assault) is defined as intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence.


The actus reus of assault is the causing of the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence Ireland 1998.


The mens rea of assault is to cause such fear or apprehension either intentionally or recklessly.


There were two forms of recklessness up until the House of Lords decision in the case of G and Another i.e. Cunningham recklessness and Caldwell recklessness. Cunningham recklessness is the subjective form, and Caldwell recklessness is the objective form. It is the Cunningham style recklessness that is required for the purposes of proving the offence.


There is no need for the use of force or contact and examples might include such conduct as shaking a fist or brandishing a knife or other weapon. In the past there have been doubts whether words alone would be sufficient. However in Constanza 1997 the Court of Appeal clearly held that an assault could be committed by the use of words alone. The case of Ireland 1998 is also helpful. This case involved the terrorising of women by silent phone calls. The House of Lords decided that this would also be enough to amount to an assault in certain circumstances.


We sometimes think of an assault as amounting to the use of force (a battery) but a battery is quite specific and different. A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another.  Battery is a summary offence, under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the punishment for which is a fine and/or a prison sentence for up to six months.


If we were to compare the law of assault with the law of battery we would note that the actus reus of battery can be defined as the application of unlawful force by one person on another. The slightest touch will be sufficient and it includes any unlawful physical contact, proof of pain or harm does not have to be shown.


With battery, the force can be direct, that is to say from one person to another for instance if one person punches another person or it can be indirect, as was the case in Haystead v Chief constable of Derbyshire (2000). In this case the defendant hit a woman who was holding her baby, the defendant punched the woman twice in the face and as a direct result of the punches the child fell from her arms hitting his head on the floor. The defendant was aware that she was holding the child and he would have foreseen the risk of the child being injured because of the force he used on the woman. He was convicted of the offence of battery against the child. He appealed on the grounds that 'to be guilty of battery it was necessary to establish that he had used force directly to the person of the child and that the evidence indicated that no force was applied directly to the child..."

His argument was rejected and the defendant's conviction was held. Battery did not require the direct infliction of violence and his action had been no different than if he had used a weapon which had caused the child to fall.


The force does not have to be directly applied to the victim of a battery it can be sufficient if their clothes are touched. A person who spits on another has committed a battery as has the person who has poked another in the chest or pushed him backwards even if there has been no harm done to the other person.

The mens rea of battery is intention or recklessness as to the application of unlawful force.

The term 'assault' or ‘common assault’ is often used to cover both assault and battery.


Returning to the matter of assault and the immediacy of the threat, the courts have taken a broad interpretation of the word ‘immediate’ in order to be fair to the victim. This is illustrated in the case of Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983). This case involved an individual who was discovered standing next to a window outside the victim’s apartment. Although there was no obvious means of entry, this apparent threat was taken to be sufficient for the purpose of establishing an offence, as it produced fear and anxiety in the mind of the victim.


Doubts have been expressed as to whether assault and battery remained common law offences despite the fact that they were classified as indictable offences under Section 47 OAP 1861. Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1888 stipulates that assault and battery are classified as summary offences. The Divisional Court in DPP v Taylor and DPP v Little 1992 has stated that these offences are to be treated as statutory offences even though the original provision in Section 47 has now been repealed.


The problems with language with this piece of legislation are well documented and the Law Commission has reviewed this area of the law. As long ago as 1993 the Commission reported in detail and put forward draft legislation with the intention of modernising the law and incorporating practical suggestions for improvement. These reforms remain to be implemented and are long overdue and would probably be welcomed by the various authorities involved – from law enforcement to the judiciary.



(Word count 923)


© Copyright

Related Items

The items below list this Essay as being related in some way.


There are no related tags.

Amazon's recommended Books

RSS Feeds