Assault
Under S39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, assault is a summary offence with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment. The elements of the offence have been developed at common law.
The actus reus of assault is: an act by D that makes V apprehend immediate, unlawful personal violence
There is no need for any physical contact between defendant and victim
Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station - The defendant stood in the garden of his victim, staring through the window at her dressed only in her night-dress. He was guilty of assault: even though he could not attack her at that very moment, her fear was of something sufficiently immediate and violent.
R v Ireland - Ireland had made a series of unwanted silent telephone calls to three women, causing them to suffer palpitations, cold sweats, anxiety, dizziness and insomnia. He appealed against his conviction for abh on the ground that he had not committed an assault on the women (as required for conviction for abh). His conviction was upheld.
The Mens Rea for assault is either intention or Cunningham recklessness
to make his victim apprehend immediate, unlawful violence, or have seen the risk of this and yet gone ahead with his act.
R v Venna - The defendant was arrested after being involved in a fracas with the police during which he had fractured with his foot the hand of one of the officers. He was convicted of assault occasioning abh. He appealed on the ground that recklessness was insufficient mens rea for the offence. It was decided that recklessness was sufficient for the offence.
Battery
Under Section 39 of The Criminal Justice Act 1988 battery is a summary offence with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or a level 5 fine. The elements of the offence have been developed at common law.
The actus reus of battery is the infliction of unlawful personal violence by the defendant upon the victim
In Cole v Turner battery was defined as “the least touching of another person in anger”. This includes the clothes a person wears. For example, in Thomas the rubbing of a girl’s skirt was held to be sufficient for a battery.
A battery can be committed without the defendant touching the victim himself
Fagan v MPC - The defendant accidentally drove his car onto a policeman’s foot and then intentionally left it there. This was a battery. The actus reus occurred when Fagan drove onto the policeman’s foot. The mens rea occurred when he decided to leave the car there.
R v Haystead – Indirect AR of battery
The defendant committed a battery against a woman when he punched her. He also committed a battery against her child when it fell out of her arms onto the floor, even though there was no direct contact between Haystead and the child.
The Mens Rea for battery is intention or recklessness as to causing a battery.
It was said in Venna: “…the element of mens rea in the offence of battery is satisfied by proof that the defendant either intentionally or recklessly applied force to the person of another”.
