



Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
An in-depth analysis of assault and sexual assault, two varied areas of law. It covers common assault, compound assault, and harm offenses. Common assault includes the intentional or reckless application of force to another person without consent or the threat of such force. Common assault offenses include assault by force and assault by threat of force. The document also discusses the legal implications of self-defense and the use of weapons. Compound assaults include assaults causing particular injuries, assaults with specific intent, assaults on certain victims, and assaults in specific circumstances. case studies and legal definitions to clarify the concepts.
What you will learn
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 7
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Assault and sexual assault
lawful right to come into contact with D, P had first committed battery against D, negativing D’s later conduct. Goff LJ said the slightest touching will constitute battery, although he also said there is an exception for contact which is generally acceptable in everyday life.
constituted by a silent phone call. Lord Steyne observed that the silent caller “intends by his silence to cause fear and he is so understood. The victim is assailed by the uncertainty about his intentions. Fear may dominate her emotions, and it may be the fear that the caller’s arrival at her door may be imminent. She may fear the possibility of immediate personal violence.” o Can a conditional threat be sufficient? It depends on the conditionality. Rozsa v Samuels [1969] SASR 205: P taxi driver threatened to punch D. D took knife and conditionally threatened P, saying “If you try it, I’ll cut you to bits”. While this was conditional, it was still held to be assault from D – because the accused created fear of imminent violence, and didn’t have the right to impose such a condition with unlawful threats. Tuberville v Savage [1669] EWHC KB J25: Savage had made some insulting comments to Tuberville. In response, Tuberville grabbed the handle of his sword and stated, "If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you." The court held that a conditional threatening statement, without an imminent threat of harm, does not constitute an assault. o Can a threat continue while the person who made the threats is asleep? R v Secretary (1996) 5 NTLR 96: The deceased threatened to kill the accused before falling asleep, so the accused killed the deceased while he slept. Accused used defence of self-defence
there is a lack of certainty on this point. Brady v Schatzel [1911] St R Qd 206: D pointed a gun at the victim (a police officer). V did not try to protect himself – said he was not afraid of D shooting him. However, it was held nonetheless that D had committed assault – as there was still an apprehension of immediate violence. Barton v Armstrong [1969] 2 NSWR 451: Taylor J: “Threats which put a reasonable person in fear or apprehension of physical violence can constitute assault, although the victim did not know when that physical violence may be affected... While plaintiff may be given an alternative to the suffering of physical harm he might nevertheless entertain a real fear that he would suffer physical violence.” MacPherson v Brown (1975) 12 SASR 184: Zelling J – victim must either fear or apprehend immediate physical violence. Ryan v Kuhl [1979] VR 315: D and V were in neighbouring cubicles in a public toilet. D thrust a knife through a hole in partition between the cubicles to stop V from annoying him. V testified the knife did not frighten him, as he realised that as long as he remained in the cubicle, D could not harm him with the knife. It was held that as the D’s conduct did not cause fear of harm in the victim, there could be no charge of assault. o Has been suggested that the victim’s apprehension of violence must be reasonable: Brady v Schatzel [1911] St R Qd 206 and Barton v Armstrong [1969] 2 NSWR 451. o Note the different offences of stalking and intimidation: Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.
o Crimes Act 1900 s 59A: Assault during public disorder o Crimes Act 1900 s 60E: Assaults at schools