Apprehend= To expect or to anticipate
DPP v Logdon~ V went to D's home to collect unpaid taxes. D opened a draw and revealed a gun. It was fake but V thought it was real
Legal principle~ A victim can still apprehend unlawful force, even if it was impossible for that force to be carried out

Immediate= Straight away or in the near future
Smith v Chief Constable of Woking~ D went to V's home late at night stood outside her bedroom window and stared in while she was getting ready for bed
Legal principle~ 'immediate does not necessarily mean straight away it has a broader meaning of ' in the near future'

Things done-
Read v Coker~ D's bailiffs went to V's premise to collect a debt. They surrounded V. They rolled up their selves and made fists v assumed D's would attack him
Legal Principle~ Gestures/ actions can be an assault

Things said or written
R v Ireland~ D was guilty of assault after making lots of unwanted telephone calls when they were answered there was silence
Legal Principle~ Even silence can be assault. Spoken words can be assault
R v Constanza~ D sent over 800 letters to the victim. Some had threats within them
Legal Principle~ Written words can be assault.
Tuberville v Savage~ D placed hand on his sword and said "If it were not assize time I would run you through the middle". D's conduct did not amount to assault
Legal Principle~ Words can negate what would otherwise have been an assault

	Erstellt von Yasmine King vor fast 8 Jahre

Summary of the law of Assault