Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Assault question

So we know from the Ireland case that words can constitute as assault and that if someone utters words that cause the victim to apprehend ‘imminent harm’ then this constitutes an assault.

However, how long is imminent? For example, Dave and Mary are in their living room, when Mary decides to tell Dave that she’s cheating on him with Rob. Dave is shocked by this, and gets very angry.

He storms out of the house vowing that he is going to confront Rob, however, before he slams the door he says ‘I’ll be back later to deal with you Mary’ In this scenario, would this be an assault?

Has Dave assaulted Mary by causing her to apprehend or fear imminent harm? I’m not sure because there is no specified time limit, i.e it is not known for how long Dave will be away, then how can it be an ‘imminent’ threat?

Further, let’s say Mary was to attack Dave when he got home, because she was in fear, surely she couldn’t’ plead self defence?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 1

CalebFudgeBrownie

To my knowledge, the case of Smith v Woking defines 'immediate' as 'any time in the near future, as long as the V believes the threat of unlawful violence will occur'. Therefore, I would class Dave's threat as immediate from Mary's point of view, because she's expecting him to return at any moment and carry out his threat of unlawful violence. If, say, the scenario read something like 'Rob said he'd return a few days later' this would lessen the chance of the threat being immediate.

In terms of self-defence, I think it would be allowed in this scenario, as Mary's apprehension is reasonable, time-wise. However, as I've said before, if Rob only returned a few days later, this would lessen the chance of Dave being found guilty of assault and Mary being allowed to use the defence, although it is possible for the D anticipate unlawful violence and strike first (an AG Ref. case, which I can't this moment remember the number of).

I hope this helps, anyway :smile:

Reply 2

Mrs Law

Thank you that is a well thought out response. I agree with most of what you’re saying. However, say for example, Mary hid in the house with a baseball bat, and upon returning she attacked Dave, striking him in the head causing a fractured skull. Do you think Mary would be able to plead self defence here, or would her conduct likely be judged as unreasonable?

Reply 3

CalebFudgeBrownie

Original post by Mrs Law

Thank you very much :smile:

In this situation, in terms of necessity, I would go along the route of AG Ref. (I really need to look up the number, sorry!) with regard to Mary being able to anticipate unlawful violence and strike first. As to whether the force was reasonable, Owino states that the level of force necessary must be considered from the D's point of view, which would make Mary's use of force reasonable, because she genuinely believed that Dave would attack her when he returned (particularly as she hid). However, in terms of proportionality of force, Martin states that excessive force used in self defence is disproportionate, which applies to Mary, because Dave didn't actually use any force on her, yet she used so much force that she fractured his skull. Therefore, on the basis of Mary failing the latter test, she wouldn't be allowed to use the defence.

I hope my suggestions are of some use to you :smile: