Assault and Battery
Battery
Establishing Battery
The actus reus of battery is met where the defendant unlawfully inflicts force upon the victim’s person: R v Rolfe (1952) Cr App R 4.
The mens rea of battery is established where the defendant intended to inflict that force or was subjectively reckless as to whether that force was inflicted: R v Venna [1976] QB 421.
Force
Any amount of force (including mere touching), no matter how slight, will suffice: R v Afolabi [2017] EWHC 2960. Touching a person’s clothes while they are wearing them counts as touching the victim: R v Thomas (1985) 81 Cr App R 331.
There is no need for the force to be direct. A battery can be committed using a weapon, a trap or by causing another to accidentally touch the victim: Haystead v CC of Derbyshire (2000) 164 JP 396; R v Martin (1881) 8 QB 54; DPP v K [1990] 1 All ER 331.
Assault
Establishing Assault
The actus reus of assault is causing the victim (to apprehend immediate battery (as defined above): R v Ireland [1998] AC 147.
The mens rea of assault is intention to cause apprehension of battery or subjective recklessness as to whether this is caused: R v Savage [1992] 1 AC 699.
Apprehending Immediate Battery
The courts have been generous with their interpretation of ‘immediate’. If the victim believes that they might be subject to immediate violence, but does not know where the defendant is or whether they have the capacity to enact their threats, this will usually be enough: R v Constanza [1997] Crim LR 576. It is therefore enough that the victim believes that immediate battery could happen.
The focus is on what the victim believes, not on what actually could have happened. For example, if the defendant threatens the victim with an unloaded gun, this could still be an assault if the victim does not know the gun is unloaded. If the victim believes the gun is unloaded, however, there will be no assault: R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981.
Relevant Causes
The defendant can cause an assault using words or conduct: R v Ireland [1998] AC 147. However, the defendant’s words can also negate an assault if they make clear that a battery is not going to happen: Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mood Rep 3.
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
Establishing Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
To establish assault occasioning actual bodily harm (‘ABH’), the prosecution must show the actus reus and mens rea of assault or battery. They must then separately prove that the assault or battery caused ABH: Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 47; R v Roberts [1971] EWCA Crim 4.
There is no need to prove that the defendant had any mens rea with regards to the causation of ABH.
Defining ABH
Actual bodily harm is any effect on the body which is calculated to interfere with the victim’s health or comfort: R v Miller [1954] 2 QB 282. It is a low threshold which includes:
Cutting the victim’s hair: DPP v Smith [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin).
A brief loss of consciousness: T v DPP [2003] Crim LR 622.
Psychiatric injury amounting to a recognised mental illness: R v Dhaliwal [2006] EWCA Crim 1139.