Assault

An assault is the act of inflicting physical

harm or unwanted physical contact upon a
person or, in some specific legal
definitions, a threat or attempt to commit
such an action.[1] It is both a crime and a
tort and, therefore, may result in criminal
prosecution, civil liability, or both.
Generally, the common law definition is the
same in criminal and tort law.
1856 lithograph of the caning of Charles Sumner.

Traditionally, common law legal systems

had separate definitions for assault and
battery. When this distinction is observed,
battery refers to the actual bodily contact,
whereas assault refers to a credible threat
or attempt to cause battery. Some
jurisdictions combined the two offences
into assault and battery, which then
became widely referred to as "assault".
The result is that in many of these
jurisdictions, assault has taken on a
definition that is more in line with the
traditional definition of battery. The legal
systems of civil law and Scots law have
never distinguished assault from battery.

Legal systems generally acknowledge that

assaults can vary greatly in severity. In the
United States, an assault can be charged
as either a misdemeanor or a felony. In
England and Wales and Australia, it can be
charged as either common assault,
assault occasioning actual bodily harm
(ABH) or grievous bodily harm (GBH).
Canada also has a three-tier system:
assault, assault causing bodily harm and
aggravated assault. Separate charges
typically exist for sexual assaults, affray
and assaulting a police officer. Assault
may overlap with an attempted crime; for
example an assault may be charged as an
attempted murder if it was done with
intent to kill.

Related definitions

Battery …

In jurisdictions that make a distinction

between the two, assault usually
accompanies battery if the assailant both
threatens to make unwanted contact and
then carries through with this threat. See
common assault. The elements of battery
are that it is a volitional act,[2] done for the
purpose of causing a harmful or offensive
contact with another person or under
circumstances that make such contact
substantially certain to occur, and which
causes such contact.[3]

Aggravated assault …

Aggravated assault is, in some

jurisdictions, a stronger form of assault,
usually using a deadly weapon.[4] A person
has committed an aggravated assault
when that person attempts to:
 cause serious bodily injury to another
person with a deadly weapon[5]
have sexual relations with a person who
is under the age of consent
cause bodily harm by recklessly
operating a motor vehicle during road
rage; often referred to as either vehicular
assault or aggravated assault with a
motor vehicle.

Aggravated assault can also be charged in

cases of attempted harm against police
officers or other public servants.

Defenses
Although the range and precise application
of defenses varies between jurisdictions,
the following represents a list of the
defenses that may apply to all levels of
assault:

Consent …

Exceptions exist to cover unsolicited

physical contact which amount to normal
social behavior known as de minimis
harm. Assault can also be considered in
cases involving the spitting on, or
unwanted exposure of bodily fluids to
others.
Consent may be a complete or partial
defense to assault. In some jurisdictions,
most notably England, it is not a defense
where the degree of injury is severe, as
long as there is no legally recognized good
reason for the assault.[6] This can have
important consequences when dealing
with issues such as consensual
sadomasochistic sexual activity, the most
notable case being the Operation Spanner
case. Legally recognized good reasons for
consent include surgery, activities within
the rules of a game (mixed martial arts,
wrestling, boxing, or contact sports), bodily
adornment (R v Wilson [1996] Crim LR
573), or horseplay (R v Jones [1987] Crim
LR 123). However, any activity outside the
rules of the game is not legally recognized
as a defense of consent. In Scottish law,
consent is not a defense for assault.[7]

Arrest and other official acts …

Police officers and court officials have a

general power to use force for the purpose
of performing an arrest or generally
carrying out their official duties. Thus, a
court officer taking possession of goods
under a court order may use force if
reasonably necessary.

Punishment …
In some jurisdictions such as Singapore,
judicial corporal punishment is part of the
legal system. The officers who administer
the punishment have immunity from
prosecution for assault.

In the United States, the United Kingdom,

Australia and Canada, corporal
punishment administered to children by
their parent or legal guardian is not legally
considered to be assault unless it is
deemed to be excessive or unreasonable.
What constitutes "reasonable" varies in
both statutory law and case law.
Unreasonable physical punishment may
be charged as assault or under a separate
statute for child abuse.

Many countries, including some US states,

also permit the use of corporal
punishment for children in school. In
English law, s. 58 Children Act 2004 limits
the availability of the lawful correction
defense to common assault under s. 39
Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Prevention of crime …

This may or may not involve self-defense

in that, using a reasonable degree of force
to prevent another from committing a
crime could involve preventing an assault,
but it could be preventing a crime not
involving the use of personal violence.

Defense of property …

Some jurisdictions allow force to be used

in defense of property, to prevent damage
either in its own right, or under one or both
of the preceding classes of defense in that
a threat or attempt to damage property
might be considered a crime (in English
law, under s5 Criminal Damage Act 1971 it
may be argued that the defendant has a
lawful excuse to damage property during
the defense and a defense under s3
Criminal Law Act 1967) subject to the
need to deter vigilantes and excessive
self-help. Furthermore, some jurisdictions,
such as Ohio, allow residents in their
homes to use force when ejecting an
intruder. The resident merely needs to
assert to the court that they felt
threatened by the intruder's presence.

This defense is not universal: in England

(for example) homeowners have been
convicted of assault for attacking
burglars.[8]

Regional details