Non-Fatal Offences in UK Law: Assault and Battery

Criminal Law Series: Non-fatal Offences, part1

• The first three, most serious, offences can be found in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA)

• Assault and Battery crimes (their sentences) are in the Criminal Justice Act 1988

However, these crimes are much older, therefore a lot of Common Law is used when dealing with them. This has created a few issues with the implementation of the law over the years, mainly in the realm of psychological harm.

Assault and Battery

They are both Common Law offences which depend on Common Law for their definition. Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 only provides that:

a) they are summary offences (an offence which is tried without a jury)

b) the maximum penalty (6 months in both cases)

Assault involves the creation of a mental state in the victim - the anticipation of immediate use of force or of an immediate threat, whereas battery does not necessarily have to.

Battery has to involve the use of physical force, however big or small (we do not differentiate). However it does not need to involve any sort of injury to still constitute battery. Consent negates battery.

Eg. The case of Misalati (2017), dealing with racially aggravated assault - spitting, combined with a lot of racial abuse. In this case the defendant was charged with assault even though they missed and spat on the ground instead.

• If you were to spit on SB and happened to miss, this can still constitute an assault.

• If you were to spit on SB and make contact, this could be considered a battery.

Could silence be assault?

R v Ireland (1997)

The victim (V) received multiple silent phone calls from the defendant (D), where only D’s breathing could be heard, causing V a lot of mental and physical distress. Nowadays we would label a case of this kind as stalking. Since then there’s been legislation created regarding stalking.

Now there was the question whether silent phone calls could constitute an assault. We have the issue of applying the old law that, as expected, did not mention phone calls. Another problem is that nothing was said during the phone calls. Could nothing constitute an assault?

The court decided to hold that “ a thing said is also a thing done”. In other words, words could be assault. They held that even no words (or silence) could amount to assault if the V is in fear of immediate physical danger.

Is stalking assault?

R v Constanza (1997)

D wanted a relationship with V and they sent numerous letters (around 800) and made many phone calls to V, then stalked V (watched their house). All of this led to V suffering from clinical depression.

If it can be proven that V may fear violence at some point (because of the calls, letters, threats etc.), it is possible for the D to be charged with assault.

Words and assault

Words can either be an aggravating or a mitigating circumstance when it comes to assault.

Negating Assault

Tuberville v Savage (1669)

Was a civil case found in the law of Tort (meaning that it is both a criminal and civil law offence).

Plaintiff (or defendant) put their hand on their sword and said something along the lines of if there weren’t so many judges and officers of law (it was assize-time = time when judges and officers of law came to the town to deal with cases), he would use his sword. These words make it clear that there’s lack of intent on the plaintiffs part to strike the V. And without intention (mens rea) in this case, we can no longer speak of assault.

Worsening of Assault

Read v Coker (1853)

Assault worsened due to a threatening remark made by the D (along the lines of : If you do not leave I’m going to break your neck.) .

• This can be considered assault since it is instructing the victim that they have to do something to avoid being attacked. Thus the V is anticipating the use of physical force.

• Words that will only or are only intended to take effect in the future cannot be considered an assault.

E.g. If you were a prosecutor and you sent someone down for a crime, and they shout back “When I get out, I’m going to get you!”- this could not constitute an assault.

I.e. If a threat cannot be carried out immediately, it cannot be constituted as an assault.

Battery cases

Haystead v CC Derbyshire (2000)

D struck the V (a mother) who was carrying their child. As a result the mother dropped the child and the child subsequently suffered an injury. During this series of events, D had not made contact with the child at any moment.

The issue here was whether this could be classed as battery since there only was an indirect force applied.

The court held that even an indirect force applied could constitute a battery,

Santana-Bermudez (2004)

A police woman was about to search D, because he was a suspected drug user. The police officer asked if he had any needles on him. D answered no, knowing he had needles on him. He willingly decided to withhold that information from the officer, knowing it could cause them physical harm.

Emission can be considered battery.

* Please note that at no point in this blog am I providing legal advice or claiming to be a professional. These blogs are for entertainment and educational purposes only.*