Understanding Assault and Unlawful Physical Contact: Consent, Harm, and Imminence, Study notes of Law

Download Understanding Assault and Unlawful Physical Contact: Consent, Harm, and Imminence and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! ASSAULT  –  DIAGRAM       ASSAULT  –  SUMMARY       • S  61  -­‐  Common  Assault:  Whosoever  assaults  any  person,  although  not  occasioning  actual  bodily  harm,  shall  be  liable   to  imprisonment  for  two  years.     ACTUS  REUS     1. Unlawful  physical  contact  (application  of  force)   -­‐ Must  be  a  voluntary  act  (cannot  be  omission  –  Fagan  –  but  note  flexible  use  of  AR  and  MR  coincidence   requirement  in  that  case)   -­‐ Need  not  cause  harm  or  injury  (can  be  spitting  –  see  DPP  v  JWH)   -­‐ Application  of  force  can  only  give  rise  to  criminal  liability  if  it  occurs  without  the  other  person’s  consent   (express  or  implied  –  the  circumstance)   2. Act  creating  apprehension  of  imminent  unlawful  physical  contact   -­‐ D  may  be  guilty  of  assault  even  if  no  contact  is  made  with/force  is  applied  to  another  person   -­‐ Words  alone  in  inappropriate  circumstances  can  constitute  assault  at  common  law  (Barton  v  Armstrong)   -­‐ Where  D  creates  in  V  an  apprehension  of  imminent  (immediate)  unlawful  contact   -­‐ Requires  a  positive  act  (Fagan)  –  but  there  is  a  broad  definition  (see  Ireland  and  Burstow)   -­‐ IMMINENCE:   o Knight:  Threatening  &  abusive  phone  call,  absent  the  potential  for  immediate  violence,  did  not   constitute  assault   o Zanker  v  Vartzokas:  Verbal  threat,  within  the  context  of  continuing  unlawful  imprisonment,   constituted  a  threat  of  immediate  violence,  consequently  injury  sustained  escaping  =  assault   occasioning  ABH   o Ireland  &  Burstow:  Silent  phone  calls  may  constitute  an  assault  depending  on  the  facts     MENS  REA   P  must  prove  either  that  D:   1. Intention:  Intended  to  effect  unlawful  contact;  or  create  apprehensions  of  imminent  unlawful  contact;  or   2. Recklessness:  was  reckless  as  to  whether  his/her  actions  would  effect  unlawful  contact;  or  create  apprehensions   of  imminent  unlawful  contact.  Subjective  !  wether  D  knows  could  give  V  reasonable  ground  of  apprehension   RECKLESSNESS  !  foresight  of  a  possibility  (negligence  insufficient  –  MacPherson  v  Brown)   CL:  Particular  form  of  recklessness  is  inadvertent  recklessness.  But,  also  see  CA  s  4.     AGGRAVATED  ASSAULTS   ss  32  -­‐  61   • Presence  of  one  of  more  factors   o Harm  caused   o Harm  intended  (or  inflicted  recklessly)   o Method  used  (e.g.  weapon)   o Status  of  victim  (e.g.  police  officer)   o Setting  (e.g.  school,  during  public  disorder,  etc)   • HARM   o Actual  Bodily  Harm  (ABH)  -­‐  defined  in  CL  as  “any  hurt  or  injury  calculated  to  interfere  with  the  health  or   comfort  of  the  prosecutor…need  not  be  permanent…but  more  than  merely  transient  and  trifling   (Donovan);  can  be  a  psychiatric  illness  (Ireland  &  Burstow).  No  statutory  MR  –  look  to  case  law.   o Grievous  Bodily  Harm  (GBH)  –  non-­‐exhaustive  definition:  Crimes  Act  s  4:  “the  destruction  (other  than  in   the  course  of  a  medical  procedure)  of  the  foetus  of  a  pregnant  woman...any  permanent  or  serious   disfiguring  of  the  person...any  grievous  bodily  disease...really  serious"  (see  DPP  v  Smith;  death  of  a  foetus   see  King).  Can  be  caused  by  an  omission  (s  54)  –  degree  of  negligence  same  for  manslaughter  (R  v  D)   o Wounding  –  defined  in  CL  as  “an  injury  involving  the  breaking  or  cutting  of  the  interior  layer  of  the  skin   (dermis)  (R  v  Smith)   • Wounding  or  causing  GBH  requires  intent  to  cause  GBH.  Misdirection  of  intended  harm  does  not  negate  the   intention  for  the  purposes  of  proving  the  offence.     • “Occasioning”  =  there  must  be  causation  !  assault  occasioning  ABH  is  common  assault  which  happens  to  cause   ABH  !  MR  for  that  offence  is  identical  to  that  of  common  assault  (Zanker)     ACCEPTABLE  VIOLENCE   • CONSENT   o Absence  of  consent  an  ingredient  of  criminal  responsibility  –  operates  like  a  ‘defence’   o Aggravated  assault  w/harm  caused  –  consent  NO  defence  (Brown)   o Accepted  exceptions:  tattooing,  male  circumcision,  body  piercing,  branding  spouse  (Wilson),  sports   (Billinghurst),  medical  procedure  (vitiated  by  mistake  as  to  nature  of  act/identity  of  person  (Richardson)   • CHILD  DISCIPLINE   o Crimes  Act,  s  61AA  –  defence  of  lawful  correction;  parents  entitled  to  use  reasonable  and  moderate  force   to  chastise  their  children       ASSAULT  –  CASES   Unlawful  physical  contact:   • Fagan  v  Commissioner  of  Metropolitan  Police  [1969]  1  QB  439  (Fagan)   o Issue:  Was  there  the  necessary  coincidence  of  criminal  intent  with  the  physical  element  of  the  assault,   sufficient  to  constitute  a  crime?   o Held:  No  mere  omission  to  act  can  amount  to  an  assault.  But,  physical  element  of  assault  regarded  as  a   continuing  act.  Criminal  intent  formed  during  the  course  of  continuing  act   Apprehension  of  imminent  unlawful  physical  contact:   • MacPherson  v  Brown:  An  assault  is  any  act,  which  intentionally  or  recklessly  causes  another  person  to  apprehend   immediate  and  unlawful  violence  of  physical  contact.  The  mens  rea  is  D’s  intention  to  produce  such  a  fear/   reckless  as  to  whether  their  conduct  would  give  rise  to  such  a  fear  and  continues  anyway.   • Rozsa  v  Samuels:  A  threat  made  in  a  way  that  implies  that  violence  will  be  inflicted  only  in  certain  circumstances   will  meet  the  definition  of  assault  based  on  apprehension  of  immediate  violence  if  the  accused  had  no  right  to   make  the  condition  e.g.  going  beyond  what    was  reasonable  as  self-­‐defence.   • Knight  v  R  (1988)  35  A  Crim  R  314  (Knight)   o Issue:  Where  a  phone  call  in  which  threats  of  violence  were  made  could  constitute  an  assault   o Held:  Distinction  between  apprehending  immediate  violence  (AR  of  CL  assault)  and  immediately   apprehending  violence  (perception  of  potential  victim,  may  or  may  not  be  justified  in  the  circumstances).   Victim  must  reasonably  anticipate  the  threat  of  force  e.g.  if  caller  lived  in  a  neighbouring  street.   • R  v  Ireland;  R  v  Burstow  [1997]  4  All  ER  225  (Ireland  &  Burstow)   o Issue:  Can  silent  phone  calls  prove  a  sufficient  threat  of  immediate  violence  to  constitute  and  assault?   o Held:  Yes,  in  certain  circumstances  they  can.  Context  and  facts  of  each  case  required.   • Zanker  v  Vartzokas  (1988)  34  A  Crim  R  11  (SASC)   o Issue:  can  a  verbal  threat  constitute  a  threat  of  immediate  violence?   o Held:  Yes,  within  the  context  of  continuing  unlawful  imprisonment  –  consequently,  an  injury  sustained   escaping  immediately  after  the  verbal  threat  was  sufficient  to  sustain  a  charge  of  assault  occasioning  ABH.