Assault Cases PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes taken by myself of all the key cases concerning the Tort of Assault.
Points of law are broken down and highlighted for their significance in this area of law.
Perfect for revision any time....

Description

Assault Cases Stephens v. Myers [1830] EWCA KB J37 In a parish council meeting, the meeting voted to have the defendant ejected. He refused, and advanced towards the chairman waving his clenched fist saying he would ‘rather throw him from the chair’. He was stopped before getting within striking distances but the chairman sued for assault. HELD - the claim succeeded. Tindal CJ said: ‘It is not every threat, when there is no actual personal violence, that constitutes an assault, there must, in all cases, be the means of carrying that threat into effect.’

Tuberville v. Savage [1669] 1 Mod Rep 3 The defendant put his hand on his sword and stated, ‘if it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you’. Assize-time is when the judges were in the town for court sessions. HELD - it was held that this did not amount to assault, as the words indicated that no violence would ensure.

Read v. Coker [1853] 13 CB 850 CP The claimant owed the defendant rent. When the defendant told the claimant to leave, the claimant refused. The defendant then ordered some of his employees to see the claimant of the premises. These men then surrounded the claimant and rolled their sleeves up, and told him that if he didn’t leave, they would break his neck. The defendant was a rent collector and entered the claimants workshop, refusing to leave until the rent was paid. HELD - This was considered to be an assault as the conditions attached to the threat was not enough to nullify it. This changed the law as it stated that words without a threatening gesture can amount to an assault as this can intentional and directly cause the victim to fear imminent assault.

R v. George Light [1956] Crim LR 52 The defendant, St. George, got into an argument with the claimant, Mr Durant. During this argument, the defendant took out a gun and pointed it at the claimant. Unbeknownst to the claimant, the gun was not loaded. HELD - it was held by the court that, in the circumstances, the defendant was guilty of assault. Threatening someone with a gun, regardless of whether the gun was loaded would amount to a threat as long as the victim thought the gun was loaded. On the other hand, where the victim was aware that the gun was not loaded, but was still afraid, that fear would be unreasonable and therefore would not be assault in those circumstances. This is subjective.

R v. Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534

The defendant made a series of silent telephone calls over three months to three diferent women. He was convicted under s.47 Ofences Against the Person Act 1861. He appealed contending that silence cannot amount to an assault and the psychiatric injury is not bodily harm. HELD - His conviction was upheld. Silence can amount to an assault and psychiatric injury can amount to bodily harm.

Mbasogo v. Logo Ltd (No.1) [2005] EWHC 2034 The action was launched by the President of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and related to an alleged coup d’etat against the President and the Government. It was alleged in the case that between March 2003-2004, the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to carry out such a coup and that a part of this activity was carried out in England. Specifically, the coup was to comprise an armed assault by 70 former Special Forces soldiers who had significant combat experience. This was in addition to a force of 20 soldiers who would infiltrate the country and gather intelligence before the main attack commences. At least some of the soldiers involved would be former South American military soldiers. The coup was to be well supplied with military material and had as its aim, in addition to overthrow the government, the seizure of the valuable assists of the state and also to harm or ultimately kill the President (the Claimant), so that he may be replaced by another. The coup was a complete failure, as the assault force was arrested in Zimbabwe, along with their equipment before the coup could even begin with. Further arrests were made in Guinea for people assisting with the coup. Some were convicted under laws for procuring weapons, while most mercenaries were convicted for immigration ofences which did not carry penalties of similar calibrate. Others were convicted under the Regulations of Foreign Military Assistance Act 1998 [No. 15 of 1998]. The claim alleged that the coup caused “mayhem” in Equatorial Guinea, had a significant negative impact on vital foreign assistance and caused ‘great apprehension and fear’ on the claimant, who had feared that him and his family would be harmed or even killed. HELD - It was held that, as the advance group had already made its way to Equatorial Guinea was not armed and there was no indication that they were able to carry out any attack, an allegation of assault must fail. The allegation must also fail because it requires an overt act, which was not present in this case, since all that was present was an advanced unarmed group and the presence of a group of mercenaries (albeit armed) in another country. Neither could constitute an overt act which could cause the claimant to fear immediate violence. This case is therefore authority both for the fact that the tort of assault requires an overt act which will cause the apprehension of immediate violence in the claimant but also that impossibility to carry out the threat is destructive of a claim of assault.

Thomas v. National Union of Miners [1986] Ch 20 During a set of strokes organised by the NUM, the claimant (a miner), wanted to continue working in the mines instead of striking. He, along with others, had to be bussed to the mines so that they could get to work through the pickets. Every day this involved being driven through an aggressive crowd of stroking miners (organised by the defendant) who

shouted threats towards the claimant and others who were on the bus, in addition to making violent gestures in their direction. However, there was always police at the scene who stood between the pickets and the bus and in addition, the claimant and other miners were protected by the bus itself. HELD - the court held that the actions of the defendant could not constitute an assault as the crowd lacked the capacity to immediately carry out its threats. Capability to put a threat imminently was a necessary aspect of the tort of assault. However, these acts were actionable under the tort of nuisance....