Assault, Battery and Defences
Assault
Actus Reus (AR):
The actus reus of assault involves causing the victim (V) to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. This means that V must believe that they are about to face some form of violence from the defendant (D). The threat of violence must be immediate and not merely future or conditional.
Mens Rea (MR):
The mens rea for assault is either intention or recklessness (subjective). This means D must either intend to cause V to apprehend immediate violence or be reckless as to whether V apprehends such violence.
• Words Alone: Words alone can constitute an assault if they are accompanied by actions that cause V to apprehend immediate violence. For example, a threatening remark combined with a menacing gesture can amount to an assault.
• No Need for Intent to Carry Out Threat: It is not necessary for D to actually intend to carry out the threat of violence; the key issue is whether V apprehended immediate violence as a result of D’s actions or words.
Case Law:
• Stephens v Myers (1830): In this case, during a church meeting, D threatened violence and approached V in a manner that indicated he was about to inflict violence. Although D did not actually carry out the threat, he was found guilty of assault because his actions created an apprehension of immediate violence in V. This case illustrates that the means to carry out a threat can be sufficient for assault.
Battery
Actus Reus (AR):
The actus reus of battery involves D touching or applying force to V. This force can be direct or indirect and can include actions such as hitting, pushing, or touching. The force applied does not need to be significant or harmful; even a slight touching can constitute a battery.
Mens Rea (MR):
The mens rea for battery is either intention or recklessness (subjective). D must either intend to apply force to V or be reckless as to whether force is applied.
• Battery Through Objects: Battery can be committed using an object. For example, if D throws an object at V or uses an object to apply force, it can still constitute a battery.
• Hostility Not Required: Battery does not need to be hostile. The key issue is whether force was applied, not whether it was done with malice or hostility.
Case Law:
• Cole v Turner (1705): This case involved a situation where D jostled V to get past in a narrow street. The court held that even slight touching in anger can constitute battery. If the touching was done in a non-violent manner without any element of anger, it might not amount to a battery. This case emphasises that the context and nature of the touching play a role in determining whether battery occurred.
Partial Defences
Partial defences reduce the liability for a crime, often mitigating the offence from murder to manslaughter or reducing the severity of other charges. The main partial defences are:
1. Loss of Self-Control (LOSC):
◦ Previous Provocation: Formerly known as provocation, LOSC can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter if D lost self-control due to a qualifying trigger (e.g., serious violence or a grave wrong done to D). The loss of control must be such that a reasonable person would have acted in the same way.
2. Diminished Responsibility (DR):
◦ Mental Illness or Abnormality: Diminished responsibility can reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter if D was suffering from a recognised mental illness or abnormality of mental functioning that substantially impaired their ability to understand the nature of their conduct or to form a rational judgment.
3. Suicide Pact:
◦ Mutual Agreement: If D and V entered into a suicide pact and D killed V but survived, D may be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The pact must be genuine and mutual for this defence to apply.
These partial defences aim to account for mitigating factors that affect culpability, providing a means to tailor the legal response to the circumstances of each case.