7710446
s.37 CJA 1988 (Assault and Battery)
- Assault
- Intentionally or recklessly
cause V to apprehend
immediate or unlawful
force: IRELAND
- By act or words, D causes V
to apprehend immediate
or unlawful force
- Omission is not enough
- Omission is not enough
- Can be verbal, written
or typed
- Letters can be an
assault: CONSTANZA
- Silent phonecalls
can be an assault:
IRELAND
- Letters can be an
assault: CONSTANZA
- V must apprehend force
but need not be scared
or actually in danger:
LOGDON v DPP
- Must be an
apprehension of
immediate.
- Unlawful use of force at an
unpredictable moment in the
future is sufficient: SMITH v SWPS
- Unlawful use of force at an
unpredictable moment in the
future is sufficient: SMITH v SWPS
- Words indicating
that there will be no
immediate force
prevent an act from
being an assault:
TUBERVILLE v
SAVAGE
- Mens rea -
intention or
recklessness as to
causing V to
apprehend
immediate or
unlawful force:
VENNA
- Intentionally or recklessly
cause V to apprehend
immediate or unlawful
force: IRELAND
- Battery
- Intentionally or
recklessly apply
unlawful force to V:
COLLINS v WILCOCK
- Force can include the
slightest touching, but not
the ordinary jostling of
everyday life: COLLINS v
WILCOCK
- Unlawful force
doesn't have to be
applied to V's
body, clothes are
sufficient:
THOMAS
- Battery can be
indirect: HAYSTEAD
- Can be committed
by an omission if D
has a duty to act:
DPP v SANTANA
BEMUDEZ
- Actus reus may be
a continuing act:
FAGAN v MPC
- Mens rea -
Intention or
recklessness as
to applying force
to V: VENNA
- Intentionally or
recklessly apply
unlawful force to V:
COLLINS v WILCOCK
Möchten Sie kostenlos Ihre eigenen Mindmaps mit GoConqr erstellen? Mehr erfahren.