NON-FATAL OFFENCES - Assault

Criminal principles
Actus reus: the physical element, the guilty act

Mens rea: the mental element, intention

Causation: factual + legal causation

Factual causation: 'but for' test (R v Pagett) - ' but for the defendant's conduct, would the
consequence have occurred?'

Legal causation: the defendant is the operating and substantial cause of the consequence

Intervening acts: Medical treatment (R v Jordan, R v Smith)

Victim's own actions: (R v Roberts, R v Williams)

Thin skull rule: R v Blaue

YOU MUST STATE!

 If there are no intervening acts

 If the defendant is the factual and legal cause.

Actus reus:
The physical element, the guilty act

Omissions- failure to do something

Mens rea:
The mental element, intention

Direct intent: d's main aim or purpose (R v Mohan)

Indirect (oblique) intent: R v Woollin - 2 stage test:

1. the reasonable person would have known the consequence was virtually certain to
happen (objective test)
2. The defendant knew the consequence was virtually certain to happen (subjective
test)

Recklessness: R v Cunningham = D knew the risk of the consequence but continued to take
the risk
 NON-FATAL OFFENCES - Assault

TYPES OF NON-FATAL OFFENCES:

 Assault – no physical touch but creates fear

 Battery – non-consensual physical touch
 S.47 – assault OR battery causing actual bodily harm (small non-serious injuries)
 S.20 – grievous bodily harm with direct intent or recklessness (serious injury)
 S.18 – grievous bodily harm with intent (direct OR indirect) (serious injury)

ASSAULT EXAM QUESTION STRUCTURE:

Intro: D (name) can be charged with an assault against V (name) under s.39 Criminal Justice
Act 1988

State the actus reus of assault, support with case law: The actus reus of assault is that the
victim must apprehend immediate unlawful force (R v Ireland) (Stephen v Myers)

Apply: In this scenario … What clues indicate that the V apprehended immediate unlawful
force (fear)

Causation: factual and legal / recklessness. D must have causation; this looks at both factual
and legal. For factual causation, 'but for the defendant scaring V, V wouldn't have hit his
head on the wall' (R v Pagett) Therefore D is the factual cause. D is also the operating and
substantial cause. D is clearly the factual and legal cause of V apprehending immediate
unlawful force and there are no intervening acts.

State the mens rea of assault; D must also have the mens rea of assault. This looks at direct
intent and recklessness. For direct intent, it must be d's main aim or purpose to cause v to
apprehend immediate unlawful force' (Mohan)

Apply: In this scenario …

For recklessness, d must have known that there was a risk of causing v to apprehend
immediate unlawful force because of his actions but continued to take that risk.
(Cunningham) Apply: Here, the defendant knew there was a risk of v being scared but
continued to take that risk.

Conclusion: D has both the actus reus and mens rea of assault and therefore could be guilty
of this offence.
 NON-FATAL OFFENCES - Assault

PRACTICE QUESTION:

Ahmed was sitting in his house when a brick, thrown by Bryan, crashed through his
window. Ahmed feared that he was about to be attacked by Bryan's gang which was
noted for racist attacks. In a panic, Ahmed rushed out of his house and jumped into his
van. He raced to the police station

Ignoring liability for any property offences, discuss the criminal liability of Bryan for the
incident with the brick.

The defendant (Bryan) can be charged with an assault against the victim (Ahmed) under s.39
Criminal Justice Act 1988

The actus reus of assault is that the victim must apprehend immediate unlawful force (R v
Ireland) (Stephen v Myers). Here, Ahmed feared that he was about to be attacked by Bryan's
gang because of Bryan throwing a brick through his window.

The defendant must have causation, this looks at both factual and legal. For factual
causation, ' but for Bryan throwing the brick through Ahmed's window, Ahmed wouldn't
have been in fear that he was about to be attacked by Bryan's gang' (R v Pagett). Therefore,
Bryan is the factual cause. Bryan is also the operating and substantial cause. D is clearly the
factual and legal cause of V apprehending immediate unlawful force and there are no
intervening acts.

The defendant must also have the mens rea of assault. This looks like direct intent and
recklessness. For direct intent, it must be the defendant’s main aim or purpose to cause the
victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force' (Mohan). Here, it may have been Bryan's
main aim to throw the brick into Ahmed's window to cause him to fear.

For recklessness, the defendant must have known that there was a risk of causing the victim
to apprehend immediate unlawful force because of his actions but continued to take that
risk. (Cunningham). Here, Bryan knew that throwing a brick at someone's window would
cause it to crash threw and scare whoever was there but continued to do so. Here, Bryan
had a reckless intent.

Bryan has both the actus reus and mens rea of assault and therefore could be guilty of this
offence.
 NON-FATAL OFFENCES - Assault

ACTIVITY: FIND THE ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA OF THE FOLLOWING

The defendant jumps out of her parked car as the victim is walking past and screams at
the victim 'I’m going to kill you!' The victim faints

Actus reus = Jumping out + screaming 'I’m going to kill you'

Mens rea = direct intent

The defendant texts the victim 'whn i c u after colg u r dead'. The victim goes to see his
teacher because he is very scared.

Actus reus = texting - words are sufficient (R v Constanza)

Mens rea = Direct intent

The defendant, the victim's friend, hides in the victim's wardrobe. When the victim comes
in the room, the defendant jumps out screaming. The victim finds it really funny, and they
both laugh

Actus reus = no assault

Mens rea = no assault