8456485
Question 1
Question
Definition of Assault is found in [blank_start]Section 2[blank_end] of the 1997 Act. Assault is defined as: A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, [blank_start]without lawful excuse[blank_end], intentionally or recklessly: a) [blank_start]directly or indirectly applies force[blank_end] to or causes an impact on the body of another, or
b) causes [blank_start]another to believe on reasonable grounds[blank_end] that he or she is likely [blank_start]immediately[blank_end] to be subjected to any such force or impact.
Answer
-
Section 2
-
without lawful excuse
-
directly or indirectly applies force
-
another to believe on reasonable grounds
-
immediately
Question 2
Question
R v Ireland [1997]
Answer
-
Words can negate acts that may constitute an assault. The act of placing a hand on the weapon was in itself an assault, since he also said that he "would not take such language" it negated the reasonable fear of immediate battery.
-
Apprehension of force. Under this case, the defendant subjected the victim to a campaign of silent phone calls, thus instilling fear in the victim that the caller's arrival at her door was imminent. Fear of immediate violence.
-
Schoolboy hid acid in hand dryer. Since he had turned on the hand dryer himself, the defendant was guilty of assaulting the other boy who was badly injured by his indirect action. Indirect infliction of force. In line with Sec 2 of the 1997 Act.
-
Allows for a level of implied consent in general daily interactions, ie jostling in supermarkets or a handshake. Only when the defendant knows of believes that the victim doesn't want to be touched, is he committing an offense.
Question 3
Question
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
Answer
-
Words can negate acts that may constitute an assault. The act of placing a hand on the weapon was in itself an assault, since he also said that he "would not take such language" it negated the reasonable fear of immediate battery.
-
Allows for a level of implied consent in general daily interactions, ie jostling in supermarkets or a handshake. Only when the defendant knows of believes that the victim doesn't want to be touched, is he committing an offense.
-
Apprehension of force. Under this case, the defendant subjected the victim to a campaign of silent phone calls, thus instilling fear in the victim that the caller's arrival at her door was imminent.
Question 4
Question
DPP v K [1990]
Answer
-
Allows for a level of implied consent in general daily interactions, ie jostling in supermarkets or a handshake. Only when the defendant knows of believes that the victim doesn't want to be touched, is he committing an offense.
-
Apprehension of force. Under this case, the defendant subjected the victim to a campaign of silent phone calls, thus instilling fear in the victim that the caller's arrival at her door was imminent.
-
Schoolboy hid acid in hand dryer. Since he had turned on the hand dryer himself, the defendant was guilty of assaulting the other boy who was badly injured by his indirect action. Indirect infliction of force.
Question 5
Question
Collins v Wilcock [1984]
Answer
-
Allows for a level of implied consent in general daily interactions, ie jostling in supermarkets or a handshake. Only when the defendant knows of believes that the victim doesn't want to be touched, is he committing an offense.
-
Consent is a valid defence to assault causing bodily harm under sec.2, but not sec.3.
-
Apprehension of force.
Want to create your own Quizzes for free with GoConqr? Learn more.