View Full Version : A thread about the law. Or rather, a law.
We were having a rather heated discussion the other day in the pub about some lad we knew who had just been banged away for assault, and the talk got on to the actual definition of assault.
The way it went was that one side said that you can get done for assault by making verbal threats, and then tried to quote an excerpt from the actual law saying that "assault was the immediate threat of physical attack", or something very similar. The other side said this wasn't possible at all.
Our example was along the lines of if someone came up to you and said "I'm going to break your f**king legs right now you tw*t", could they get charged with assault, as it was the threat of immediate physical danger/attack?
Much debate and random shouting ensued but no conclusion was reached either way.
Anyone got a better definition of assault, or even any opinions on it? I've tried to google the assault law but couldn't get very much - lots of People vs Joe Bloggs case file notes, but nothing in the way of a defining law, in the UK.
There's a tenner riding on this btw (not saying which side I was on) :P
It's assault if they knew you were going to do it first.
As in, you approached them with a bat and swung it.
If you approached them from behind its not, because they didn't know you were there!
But what if they never actually did it? Just threatened to? Is there a 'threatening behaviour' law or something, or could they get done for assault just for the verbal?
SilentBear
17-01-2003, 18:03
you mean 'words amount to an assault'? yes they do, i would quote the case, theres and old one that shows that words can cancel and assault. Words and silence amount to assault though, im 100% certain of it, and if they question its under the Criminal Justice Act, and i studied it in great deal at A level law at which i got a B
Arachnamus
17-01-2003, 18:16
154. In Part I of the [1986 c. 64.] Public Order Act 1986 (offences relating to public order), after section 4, there shall be inserted the following section—
"Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
4A. — (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b) that his conduct was reasonable.
(4) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.
Thats all about harassment, not found anything on assault yet, but I'd assume they wouldnt have two laws that include the same thing. Never know.
Arachnamus
17-01-2003, 18:19
postcount++
(3) The offences to which this section applies are—
(a) common assault;
(b) an offence under section 12(1) of the [1968 c. 60.] Theft Act 1968 (taking motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority etc.);
(c) an offence under section 99(b) of the [1972 c. 20.] Road Traffic Act 1972 (driving a motor vehicle while disqualified);
(d) an offence mentioned in the first column of Schedule 2 to the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (criminal damage etc.) which would otherwise be triable only summarily by virtue of section 22(2) of that Act
Again, nothing is mentioned about what actually qualifies as "common assualt".
=KoolMoD=
17-01-2003, 18:21
Your signature is assault on my name, I'll see you in court you scouse tit.
Yours faithfully,
John Aldridge
FireStorm_tfc
17-01-2003, 19:04
If you feel that you are in immediate danger of physical attack then that is classed as Actual Assault - regardless of whether you are hit or not.
I suppose it could also be described as Threatening Behaviour but what the hey....
Funnily enough it is a topic that I was describing to someone in work the other day. A friend came up to me and said (pretend threatening) "I'm gonna f*ck you" and he raised his fist. I replied that he had assaulted me and we then started arguing about whether he had in fact assaulted me (if he was really threatening me that is) I managed to convince the assembled throng that he could be prosecuted for Actual Assault if he meant what he said to me - along with his raised fist.
i thought there was 'verbal assult' and 'physical assult' with two different punishments :O
FireStorm_tfc
17-01-2003, 19:10
Verbal Assault is just hurling insults isn't it?
Mr.Wh1te
17-01-2003, 20:18
there are 4 titles of offence in this area
assault - purely verbal
assault and batterey - verbal, then beat someone up
actual bodily harm - leave a nasty mark
grevious bodily harm - hospitalise
thats a simple way of looking at it, I'd neeed to read through my law book to develop it properly.
You should become a teacher Halo.
You excel in nearly every topic under the sun. Can teachers use google in class?
Mr.Wh1te
17-01-2003, 21:13
i've posted in only 3 or 4 topics in the past week ron, i knew that stuff because i've been revising for a law exam on wednesday, i could still be wrong.
dont jump on the band wagon with all the other retards, I thought better of you.
I didn't expect you to take the bait but nevermind you did.
You are no doubt a clever a guy, but you do have a tendancy to come across like a past exam paper answer in your replies.
I don't know you from Adam otherwise, and I welcome any traffic on the forum regardless of who it is. Except Nickz0r maybe :P
Flomotion
17-01-2003, 21:19
Firestorm, you should take that as a compliment!
Mr.Wh1te
17-01-2003, 21:21
i'm not clever, I just think in essays ;p.
techincally
racial verbal abuse is a law breaker...
I remember that from somewhere
maybe the person I hear it from got it wrong
I dunno
always carry a dictaphone and stand around well camered areas
so whatever is said and done can be recorded
you never can tell with ppl these days
FireStorm_tfc
18-01-2003, 05:05
Originally posted by Flomotion
Firestorm, you should take that as a compliment!
He was talking about the other d00d.
:P
SilentBear
18-01-2003, 12:23
Words can ammount to assult as in the case of R v Ireland this was ABH i think, but for abh its something like an assault or battery occasioning actual bodily harm. This case was where she recieved dodgy phone calls and was mentally scarred by it and court found bloke guilty as words and silence ammount to an assault, and this was also the landmark case for psychiatric harm
that cover it? it basicly depends on what is said, where, when etc. and also the sensitivity of the assaulted, for example a woman may be seen as being more succeptable than a man
ie, you say im going to butt fook you, could be an assault, so watch urself and1e
The-Bandido
18-01-2003, 16:09
Assault is a form of trespass ("trespass to the person") under Civil law, so the recourse would be to sue the person for damages. Assault is the threat of use of physical force, Battery is the actual doing.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.