- Order:
- Duration: 1:11
- Published: 14 Jun 2010
- Uploaded: 18 Aug 2011
- Author: StageRightShow
Aggravated assault can also be charged in cases of harm against police officers or other public servants, or for bodily harm stemming from the reckless operation of a motor vehicle. The latter is often referred to as either vehicular assault or aggravated assault with a motor vehicle.
Consent may be a complete or partial defense to assault. In some jurisdictions, most notably England, it is not a defense where the degree of injury is severe, as long as there is no legally recognized good reason for the assault. This can have important consequences when dealing with issues such as consensual sadomasochistic sexual activity, the most notable case being the Operation Spanner case. Legally recognized good reasons for consent include; surgery, activities within the rules of a game (Mixed martial arts, wrestling, boxing, or contact sports), bodily adornment (R v Wilson), or horseplay (Jones and others). However, any activity outside the rules of the game is not legally recognized as a defense of consent. In Scottish Law, consent is not a defense for assault.
In the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, corporal punishment administered to children by their parent or legal guardian is not legally considered to be assault unless it is deemed to be excessive or unreasonable. What constitutes "reasonable" varies in both statutory law and case law. Unreasonable physical punishment may be charged as assault or under a separate statute for child abuse.
Many countries, including some US states, also permit the use of less severe corporal punishment for children in school. In English law, s58 Children Act 2004, limits the availability of the lawful correction defense to common assault under s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.
This defense is not universal: in New Zealand (for example) homeowners have been convicted of assault for attacking burglars.
The Code further explains that "mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault." Assault is in Indian criminal law an attempt to use criminal force (with criminal force being described in s.350). The attempt itself has been made an offence in India, as in other states.
The offence of assault is created by section 113 of the Criminal Code. A person is guilty of this offence if he unlawfully offers or attempts, with force or violence, to strike, beat, wound, or do bodily harm to, another.
;Assault on an officer of Revenue and Customs: This offence is created by section 32(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.
;Attacks on internationally protected persons: Section 1(1)(a) of the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (c.17) makes provision for assault occasioning actual bodily harm or causing injury on "protected persons" (including Heads of State).
;Attacks on UN Staff workers: Section 1(2)(a) of the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 (c.13) makes provision for assault causing injury, and section 1(2)(b) makes provision for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, on UN staff.
Abolished offence:
;Assault on customs and excise officers, etc.: Section 16(1)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c.2) provided that it was an offence to, amongst other things, assault any person duly engaged in the performance of any duty or the exercise of any power imposed or conferred on him by or under any enactment relating to an assigned matter, or any person acting in his aid. For the meaning of "assault" in this provision, see Logdon v. DPP [1976] Crim LR 121, DC. This offence was abolished and replaced by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.
English law provides for two offences of assault: common assault and battery. Assault (or common assault) is committed if one intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. Violence in this context means any unlawful touching, though there is some debate over whether the touching must also be hostile. Confusingly, the terms "assault" and "common assault" often encompass the separate offence of battery, even in statutory settings such as s 40(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
In R v. Ireland, it was found that causing a person to apprehend violence can be committed by way of action or words. Words can also mean that otherwise threatening actions are rendered not capable of being an assault, as in the case of Tuberville v. Savage. In that case, the plaintiff told the defendant (while putting his hand on his sword) that he would not stab him, because the circuit judge was visiting town for the local assizes. On that basis, the defendant was deemed to have known that he was not about to be injured, and it was held that no assault had been committed by the plaintiff (which would otherwise have justified the defendant's allegedly pre-emptive strike).
The "immediacy" required by statute has been the subject of some debate. The leading case, again, is R v. Ireland. Therein, the House of Lords held that the making of silent telephone calls could amount to an assault if it caused the victim to believe that physical violence might be used against him in the immediate future. One example of "immediacy" adopted by the House in that case was that a man who said, "I will be at your door in a minute or two," might (in the circumstances where those words amounted to a threat) be guilty of an assault.
A common assault is an assault that lacks any of the aggravating features which Parliament has deemed serious enough to deserve a higher penalty. Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that common assault, like battery, is triable only in the magistrates court in England and Wales (unless it is linked to a more serious offence, which is triable in the Crown Court). Additionally, if a Defendant has been charged on an indictment with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), or racially/religiously aggravated assault, then a jury in the Crown Court may acquit the Defendant of the more serious offence, but still convict of common assault if it finds common assault has been committed.
;Assault with intent to rob: The penalty for assault with intent to rob is provided by section 8(2) of the Theft Act 1968.
;Racially or religiously aggravated common assault: This offence is created by section 29(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. If an assault is prosecuted as being racially or religiously aggravated, then it is triable either way and the maximum penalty in this case is up to two years' imprisonment, or a fine, or both.
;Racially or religiously aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm: This offence is created by section 29(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
;Assault with intent to resist arrest: This offence is created by section 38 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The offender may intend to resist or prevent either his own or someone else's lawful arrest for an offence. This offence may also be used for assaults on store detectives or members of the public exercising a right to apprehend or detain an alleged offender. This offence is triable either way, and punishable on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. There is also a general power to fine on indictment.
;Assault on a constable in the execution of his duty: Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996 provides that it is an offence for a person to assault either: ::a constable acting in the execution of their duty; or ::a person assisting a constable in the execution of their duty.
It is a summary offence which carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine. The "starting sentence," however, is a short custodial sentence, and it is considered a more serious offence than common assault.
The constable must be acting "in the execution of his duty" for this offence to be made out. If he exceeds the remit of his duty (e.g. acts unlawfully in assaulting the Defendant), the offence will not be made out.
:The Defendant does not actually have to be aware that the person he is assaulting is a constable (Forbes (1865) 10 Cox CC 362).
The fact that the victim is a police officer is not, in itself, an aggravating factor which would justify more serious charge. The criteria for a charge under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 do not distinguish between members of the public and police officers as the victim.
:According to R (Fullard) v Woking Magistrates' Court (2005) EWHC 2922 (Admin) a constable cannot be acting in the execution of their duty when unlawfully on private property. Thus, if the officer is not acting under the authority of a warrant, acting under a statutory or common law power of entry, or in hot pursuit, the person lawfully in possession of land is entitled to withdraw permission for the officer to remain. Should the officer refuse to leave, the officer will cease to be "acting in the execution of their duty". To make an effective withdrawal of permission, clear words must be used. Merely directing offensive remarks at the officer which amount to 'go away' will not necessarily withdraw any implied permission to enter or remain. Further, when properly required to leave, the officer must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to leave. However, once the opportunity to leave voluntarily has passed, it will not be an assault for the land owner to use reasonable force to cause the officer to leave.
;Assault on a prison custody officer: This offence is created by section 90(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53).
;Assault on a secure training centre custody officer: This offence is created by section 13(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c.33).
;Assault on officer saving wreck: This offence is created by section 37 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
;Assaulting an officer of the court: This offence is created by section 14(1)(b) of the County Courts Act 1984.
;Cruelty to persons under sixteen: Section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provides that it is an offence for a person who has attained the age of sixteen years, and who has responsibility for a child or young person under that age, to, amongst other things, wilfully assault that child or young person, or to cause or procure that child or young person to be assaulted, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health.
;Sexual assault: The offence of sexual assault created by section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is not defined in terms of the offences of common assault or battery. It instead requires intentional touching and the absence of a reasonable belief in consent.
Scottish law also provides for a more serious charge of aggravated assault on the basis of such factors as severity of injury, the use of a weapon, or Hamesaken (to assault a person in his own home). The mens rea for assault is simply "evil intent", although this has been held to mean no more than that assault "cannot be committed accidentally or recklessly or negligently" as upheld in Lord Advocate's Reference No 2 of 1992 where it was found that a "hold-up" in a shop justified as a joke would still constitute an offence.
It is a separate offence to assault on a constable in the execution of his duty, under section 41 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 which provides that it is an offence for a person to, amongst other things, assault a constable in the execution of his duty or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty.
That act formerly created the offence of 'Assault on a constable in the execution of his duty'. under secction 7(1)(a), but that section has been superseded by section 66(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c.32) which now provides that it is an offence for a person to, amongst other things, assault a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty.
Assault is typically treated as a misdemeanor and not as a felony (unless it involves a law enforcement officer). The more serious crime of aggravated assault is treated as a felony.
Four elements were required at common law: # The apparent, present ability to carry out; # An unlawful attempt; # To commit a violent injury; # Upon another.
Simple assault can be distinguished without the intent of injury upon another person. The violation of one's personal space or touching in a way the victim deemed inappropriate can be simple assault. In common law states an assault is not committed by merely, for example, swearing at another; without threat of battery, there can be no assault.
As the criminal law evolved, element one was weakened in most jurisdictions so that a reasonable fear of bodily injury would suffice. These four elements were eventually codified in most states.
Modern American statutes define assault as: # an attempt to cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another; or, # negligently causing bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon.
Some states also define assault as an attempt to menace (or actual menacing) by placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
States vary on whether it is possible to commit an "attempted assault" since it can be considered a double inchoate offense.
In some states, consent is a complete defense to assault. In other jurisdictions, mutual consent is an incomplete defense, with the result that the misdemeanor is treated as a petty misdemeanor.
Furthermore, the crime of assault generally requires that both the perpetrator and the victim of an assault are human. Thus, there is no assault if an ox gores a man. However, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 treats the fetus as a separate person for the purposes of assault and other violent crimes, under certain limited circumstances. See H.R. 1997 / P.L. 108-212
Some possible examples of defenses, mitigating circumstances, or failures of proof are:
Violations of the law against hubris included what would today be termed assault and battery; sexual crimes ranging from forcible rape of women or children to consensual but improper activities; or the theft of public or sacred property. Two well-known cases are found in the speeches of Demosthenes, a prominent statesman and orator in ancient Greece. These two examples occurred when first, Meidias punched Demosthenes in the face in the theater (Against Meidias), and second when (in Against Konon) a defendant allegedly assaulted a man and crowed over the victim.
Hubris, though not specifically defined, was a legal term and was considered a crime in classical Athens. It was also considered the greatest sin of the ancient Greek world. That was so because it not only was proof of excessive pride, but also resulted in violent acts by or to those involved. The category of acts constituting hubris for the ancient Greeks apparently broadened from the original specific reference to mutilation of a corpse, or a humiliation of a defeated foe, or irreverent, "outrageous treatment", in general.
The meaning was eventually further generalized in its modern English usage to apply to any outrageous act or exhibition of pride or disregard for basic moral laws. Such an act may be referred to as an "act of hubris", or the person committing the act may be said to be hubristic. Atë, Greek for 'ruin, folly, delusion', is the action performed by the hero, usually because of his/her hubris, or great pride, that leads to his/her death or downfall.
Crucial to this definition are the ancient Greek concepts of honor (timē) and shame. The concept of timē included not only the exaltation of the one receiving honor, but also the shaming of the one overcome by the act of hubris. This concept of honor is akin to a zero-sum game. Rush Rehm simplifies this definition to the contemporary concept of "insolence, contempt, and excessive violence".
This text is licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA License. This text was originally published on Wikipedia and was developed by the Wikipedia community.