Understanding Assault

[ReaderScars]

It was once described to me by a Sergeant that if a person has to back away from another who is displaying behaviour which may indicate an imminent threat of physical strike of some sort, then that is assault. However, discussing this further, an officer assured me it wasn't considered threatening behaviour.

From the CPS website http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_agains... it states:

"Common Assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force."

The 'apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force' part - does that mean back away or take evasive action to avoid? Therefore was the Sergeant correct amnd the PC 'misinformed'.

[CYMR0]

"Threatening behaviour" is not a specific offence, unlike common assault.

It does sound as though a common assault is made out, albeit one of the most minor ones.

"Threatening behaviour" probably refers to s.4 Public Order Act 1986. s.4 (2) says that "An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used...by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."

Obviously the 'no offence is committed' refers to that particular section and does not expressly permit threatening behaviour in private. Of course an offence of common assault or even aggravated burglary could be made out if the requisite elements were present.

[Rovinghawk]

Assault is the realistic threat of immediate physical force.

[TheBear]

CYMR0 said:

"Threatening behaviour" is not a specific offence, unlike common assault.

It does sound as though a common assault is made out, albeit one of the most minor ones.

"Threatening behaviour" probably refers to s.4 Public Order Act 1986. s.4 (2) says that "An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used...by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."

Obviously the 'no offence is committed' refers to that particular section and does not expressly permit threatening behaviour in private. Of course an offence of common assault or even aggravated burglary could be made out if the requisite elements were present.

Threatening behaviour would not amount to aggravated burglary under any circumstances.

[CYMR0]

Threatening someone with a weapon could be a s.4 Public Order offence.

If that happened during the course of a burglary (and the burglar was the one who was threatening), that would be aggravated burglary.

[ED209]

CYMR0 said:

Threatening someone with a weapon could be a s.4 Public Order offence.

If that happened during the course of a burglary (and the burglar was the one who was threatening), that would be aggravated burglary.

not necessarily, only if they enter the building or part of a building with the weapon.

If i break into your house, go into your bedroom and pick up your knife/bat etc etc and threaten you whilst still in the same room i do not comitt aggravated burglary.

[Tonberry]

Odd topic.

Have you been pissing short tempered people off OP?

If not you have nothing to worry about.

[anonymous-user]

I like the old case in which the defendant put his hand on the hilt of his sword and said to someone who had pished him off "Were it not for Assize time, I would not take such language from you". The defendant was acquitted of assault, because his words qualified his action. The reference to Assize time indicated that the peripatetic Judges* were in town conducting Assizes (trials). They used to travel on circuit to Assize towns until the 1960s.

PS: I have mis remembered and mis stated the facts. The bloke who spoke those words was then wounded, and the other guy pleaded provocation, but that failed because there had not been an initial assault.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberville_v_Savage




* His Majesty's Justices of Assize, gaol delivery, oyer and terminer.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 11th June 19:50

[Benjurs]

I've got question about assault so apologies for the thread drift…

Is there such a thing as a pre-emptive strike? For example if I felt threatened enough to fear immediate assault that I could get away with punching my would-be assailant before running off or removing myself from immediate danger.?

Thanks

Benjurs

[Eclassy]

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=3c2_1399488205

Is this an assault?

Would the chap in the car playing the rubbish music have apprehended an immediate infliction of unlawful force?

Was the Ninja's behaviour threatning?

[TheBear]

CYMR0 said:

Threatening someone with a weapon could be a s.4 Public Order offence.

If that happened during the course of a burglary (and the burglar was the one who was threatening), that would be aggravated burglary.

If the burglar only picked up the knife and threatened another with it then no aggravated offence as they would need to use it to commit GBH in order to commit aggravated burglary.

If they picked it up and the other person ran out of the room into another and the offender followed with intent to commit GBH then at the point of entry into the next room they would be entering part of a building as a trespasser with INTENT to commit GBH and would therefore commit the aggravated offence. There is no need for any threatening at all as it is an intent offence.

Remember - if you enter with intent to commit GBH, Theft, Criminal Damage and you have a weapon of offence with you (and know you have it) at the time of entry then you commit the aggravated offence as soon as you enter under part a.

If you arm yourself whilst inside - ie: pick up a knife in the kitchen, then you don't commit the aggravated offence even if you threaten someone with it, as part b of Burglary covers that when you are already inside as a trespasser you need to actually commit GBH or Theft to commit a burglary. It's when you move to another part of the building and intend to use it then you commit part a as soon as you enter that room.

If you pick the knife up only intending to scare someone with it or threaten them with it and move all over the building then you still don't commit the aggravated offence unless you commit GBH or steal something whilst you have it.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Rovinghawk said:

Assault is the realistic threat of immediate physical force.

Incorrect. Any intentional or reckless act which causes a person to apprehend immediate unlawful force or personal violence.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Benjurs said:

I've got question about assault so apologies for the thread drift…

Is there such a thing as a pre-emptive strike? For example if I felt threatened enough to fear immediate assault that I could get away with punching my would-be assailant before running off or removing myself from immediate danger.?

Thanks

Benjurs

Yes. A pre-emotive strike is a perfectly legitimate defence for an assault, but you would have to justify it.

[anonymous-user]

Benjurs said:

I've got question about assault so apologies for the thread drift…

Is there such a thing as a pre-emptive strike? For example if I felt threatened enough to fear immediate assault that I could get away with punching my would-be assailant before running off or removing myself from immediate danger.?

Thanks

Benjurs

Self defence may be invoked as a defence to a charge if a person uses force because of a fear of immediate violence, but these things are very context sensitive and fact specific.

[Benjurs]

Breadvan72 said:

Benjurs said:

I've got question about assault so apologies for the thread drift…

Is there such a thing as a pre-emptive strike? For example if I felt threatened enough to fear immediate assault that I could get away with punching my would-be assailant before running off or removing myself from immediate danger.?

Thanks

Benjurs

Self defence may be invoked as a defence to a charge if a person uses force because of a fear of immediate violence, but these things are very context sensitive and fact specific.

Thanks guys....always wondered about this...it all stems from watching 'coppers' on CH4 where a PC stated that if someone raised their fists at them that they'd be allowed to strike them and inferred that this was totally legal....

I guess it makes sense as it would be a little silly to allow yourself to be ttted before you could do anything about it...

But as you've both said context is everything....still how likely is that the aggressor will report you if he gets smashed after he started it...lol..

[CYMR0]

ED209 said:

Not necessarily, only if they enter the building or part of a building with the weapon.

If I break into your house, go into your bedroom and pick up your knife/bat etc. and threaten you whilst still in the same room I do not commit aggravated burglary.

R v O’Leary (1986) 82 Cr. App. R 341 deals with precisely that scenario. Aggravated burglary was made out, albeit it required that the weapon be present during a substantive part of the burglary (in this case the theft), which meant that the offence was not made out in R. V. Klass 162 JP 105 when the assault took place prior to the unlawful entry into premises.

[ferrariF50lover]

Yaaaaaay, Tuberville v Savage 1669, my favourite case!

Are we not confusing/merging tort and crime here?

Simon.

[TVR1]

ferrariF50lover said:

Yaaaaaay, Tuberville v Savage 1669, my favourite case!

Are we not confusing/merging tort and crime here?

Simon.

Yes

Edited by TVR1 on Thursday 12th June 01:02

[anonymous-user]

Tuberville is about the tort of assault, but the case is relevant to the old common law offence of common assault, which now has a statutory form. An assault will be a tort as well as a crime, just as the offence of theft is also likely to involve the tort of conversion.

Thread drifting shamelessly, another case from the same era as Tuberville concerned whether the words "she is a we, and a pocky we too" were defamatory. If I am remembering that one correctly, and I may not be, the answer was no, because the addition of "and a pocky we too" placed the words into the category of mere vulgar abuse, which is not actionable. So, remember, kids, if you want to call someone a "prostitute", be sure to add that they are a syphilitic prostitute! Last year, I did a slander case (a very rare thing) that involved someone falsely calling his cousin a prostitute at a family gathering (not in jest). Doing so cost the speaker a five figure sum.

[jshell]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Benjurs said:

I've got question about assault so apologies for the thread driftâ?¦

Is there such a thing as a pre-emptive strike? For example if I felt threatened enough to fear immediate assault that I could get away with punching my would-be assailant before running off or removing myself from immediate danger.?

Thanks

Benjurs

Yes. A pre-emotive strike is a perfectly legitimate defence for an assault, but you would have to justify it.

Not entirely accurate, but loved this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO34A_U48Wo