Difference between Criminal and Civil Assault

Civil assault Criminal assault

Meaning In civil assault, to sue the respondent for the full extent of his loss, including lost
earnings and pain and suffering of the past and future. If the respondent is convicted, he
may be imprisoned, and may also have to pay a fine and reinstatement. But the fine would be
paid to the government, and restitution would most likely cover only the medical bills, not your
non-economic losses such as pain and suffering stemming from the incident.
Procedure

Punishment

In civil assault case, a District Attorney is not involved. The matter is brought by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff has more control in the case of civil assault.

A win for the District Attorney, results in jail term, a fine, or both.

After an attack, the victim should report to the police. The police will then make an arrest, take
action on the alleged attacker and refer the case to the District Attorney.

When the plaintiff wins, the defendant will not go to jail, but will have to pay financial
compensation.

Legal defenses on charges of Assault

As with other types of criminal charges, there may be some defenses to assault charges. This
will depend on each individual case, as well as other factors such as state law. Faults commonly
charged with assault charges include:

Self-defense: This could be a defense if the defendant was acting out of self-defense. They
should only use the amount or display of force that is appropriate in the situation and in
proportion to the force being used against them.
Intoxication: In some cases, intoxication can be a legal defense, especially in cases where
intoxication affects a person’s ability to act intentionally.
Coercion: This may be a defense if the defendant was forced to attack under threat of harm (for
example, if they are being held at gunpoint and for assault at the behest of someone).
Lack of proof / proof: As stated above, if the elements of proof are not found or supported with
the correct evidence, it can serve as a legal defense.
Many other types of avoidance may exist depending on the circumstances.

Cases
Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Fagan was sitting in his car when he was approached by a police officer who asked him to take
the vehicle. Fagan did so, overturned his car and rolled over a police officer’s leg. The officer
forcefully asked him to remove the car from his leg, to which Fagan swore him and refused to
take the vehicle and shut down the engine. Fagan was convicted of assaulting a police officer in
the execution of his duty. Fagan later appealed the decision. The court held that, Although
assault is an independent crime and is to be treated as such, for practical purposes today,
assault is generally synonymous with battery. On this basis, it was held that Fagan’s crime was
not the refusal to move the car but that having driven on to the foot of the officer and decided
not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery. This meant that actus Reus
and mens rea were present and as such, an assault was committed. Fagan’s conviction was
upheld.

R. V. Constanza

A man was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a female ex-colleague. For a
period of almost two years, the man followed the women home from work, made numerous
silent phone calls, wrote her over 800 letters, drove past her house, visited her house without
consent, and wrote offensive words on her house’s door three times. Following these actions,
she received two additional letters with threatening language. She was soon diagnosed by a
doctor as suffering from clinical depression and anxiety due to apprehended fear caused by the
man’s actions and letters. A man was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a
female ex-colleague. For a period of almost two years, the man followed the women home from
work, made numerous silent phone calls, wrote her over 800 letters, drove past her house,
visited her house without consent, and wrote offensive words on her house’s door three times.
Following these actions, she received two additional letters with threatening language. She was
soon diagnosed by a doctor as suffering from clinical depression and anxiety due to
apprehended fear caused by the man’s actions and letters.

Remedies
Action for damages- Whenever the plaintiff has been wrongfully detained, he can always bring
an action to claim damages. Compensation may be claimed not only for injury to the liberty but
also for disgrace and humiliation which may be caused thereby. According to McGregor on
damages, the details of how the damages worked in false imprisonment are few: generally, it is
not a pecuniary loss or of dignity and is left to the jury and their discretion. The principle heads
for damage would appear to be the injury to liberty, i.e., the loss of time considered primarily
from a non-pecuniary viewpoint, and the injury to feelings, i.e., the dignity, mental suffering,
disgrace and humiliation with any attendant loss of social status.
Self help– This is the remedy which is available to a person who while he is still under detention
instead of waiting for legal action and procuring his release thereby.
Habeas Corpus– It is speedier remedy for procuring the release of a person who is wrongfully
detained. Such a writ may be issued either by the Supreme Court under Article 32 or by a High
Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution. By this writ person detaining is required to
produce the detained person before the court and justify the detention. If the court finds the
detention is without any just or reasonable ground, it will order that the person detained should
be immediately released.
It is just possible that the person wrongfully detained may have been set free by the time the
writ of habeas corpus is disposed off. The court hearing the petition may grant compensation as
ancillary relief in such cases . in the case of Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar and Bhim Singh v
State of J&K, the Supreme Court granted such compensation in writs of habeas corpus.

Conclusion
Assault is an attempted offense, the law is intended to prevent possible battery by punishing
conduct that comes in a dangerous way to obtain battery. As with most attempted crimes, a
clear line cannot be drawn between a criminal attack and conduct that is merely an attack
preparation. There should be an intention to cause harm, but it is not enough if it creates the
possibility of damage or the danger of battery in a distorted future. Instead, the intent must be
taken out of imminent danger, some overt act that endangers the battery. Thus, words or
intentions do not constitute mere attack.