Assessment of Assault Offences: Alfie, Kat, and Dot

Introduction

The conception of criminal law studies was inspired by two main offences typologies namely actus reus and mens rea. These two typologies are provided by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA); an enactment which agglomerated and tidied up the then existing legislations by summing together the offences into one Act.This section intends to examine the presented case involving three parties; Alfie, Kat and Dot; and the forms of assaults therein. It is through the analytical examination of the case presented that that this section will form basis to advise the Crown Prosecution Service of the liability of Alfie, Kat and Dot for assault, battery, s.47, s.20 and s.18 Offences Against the Person Act Offences.

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) fails to offer a clear component of related offences; which consequently pushed for proposals supporting enactments to reform the existing gaps. In 1980, the Criminal Law Revision Committee made proposals in its 14th Report, Offences Against the Person, Cmnd 7844 (1980). The Law Commission absorbed these recommendations and came up with the Draft Criminal Code of 1989.Four years later; in 1993 in its report came up with Legislating the Criminal Code: Offences against the Person and General Principles. In the Home Office gave a Consultation Document, Violence: Reforming the Offences Against the Person Act (1998 )1861.

The document spelled out that the 1861 Act “was itself not a coherent statement of the law but a consolidation of much older law. It is therefore not surprising that the law has been widely criticised as archaic and unclear and that it is now in urgent need of reform.”

The principal crimes are determined by certain tenets including as to whether the victim suffered injuries; their level of severity; and the rationales of the defendant (Dot). The main offences, in descending order of seriousness include;

1. Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent; contrary to s 18 OAPA
2. Malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm; contrary to s 20 OAPA
3. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm; contrary to s 47 OAPA
4. Battery; contrary to s 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
5. Assault; contrary to s 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Assault and battery are the most typical law offences. Literature points out there are no particular statutory definition of the two classes of offence; despite recognizing their existence. Both two offences are charged under s 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 which states; “39 Common assault and battery shall be summary offences and a person guilty of either of them shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.

The definitions for both assault and battery ascends fro case law Collins v Wilcock (1984) which maintain that the law provides difference in an assault and a battery. An assault is “an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person; a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person.” The case provided in which Alfie and Kat quarrels over a seat in class, with Dot intervening can be analyzed along the definition. Amidst the issue of contention, Alfie seems willing to let go the issue between him and Kat; but before letting go pokes Kat’s chin using a pen while mocking his physical appearance; which agitates Kat. Consequently, Kat picks a nearby desk and knocks his friend on the head. A third party, Dot who get concerned with what is happening takes offence on Kat and repeatedly punches his stomach, destroying his pancreas.

From the above scenario; the acts involved are different for battery and assault. In the limelight of assault, there is no touching; based on the fear for consequential disciplinary course of action. For battery there is always a tangible application of force. However, there are situations under which a battery and an assault happen simultaneously. In the case for instance; the intervention by Dot whereby he punches Kat on the stomach to stop the fight constitutes both the assault and a battery. Dot’s anticipation to end the war between the two is an assault whereas the punching is the battery.

For an assault to be; there must “be an act which causes the victim to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force.” An assault constitutes the use of word, written or verbal; or some form of acts. In Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968) 3 All ER 442, in which the defendant failed to remove his car from the foot of a police officer, the court maintained that an omission was not enough to comprise an assault. In Lodgon v DPP (1976) Crim LR 121, D opened a drawer in his office to show another individual that there was a gun inside, which D said was loaded (the gun was a fake). The actions of D according to the court of law were taken to be an assault. For words or acts to be considered as an assault; they ought to cause the victim apprehend that immediate force is going to be used against them. There is no assault if the situation is such that it is obvious that the defendant cannot actually use force.

The actus rues of battery refer to the infliction of unlawful force on another person; as in the case by which Dot inflicts punches on Kat. Any touching of another person, however slight, may constitute to battery. In his Commentaries, Blackstone wrote that; “the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence, and therefore totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of it; every man’s person being sacred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest manner.” The impact is that everyone is safeguarded not only against any form of physical injuries.

The mens rea for an assault constitutes a predetermined intention to induce a person fear immediate unlawful personal violence, or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused. The mens rea for battery is either an intention to apply unlawful physical force to another, or recklessness as to whether unlawful force is applied. Thus, in both an assault and battery contexts, intention or recklessness ought to be sufficient. Battery and Assault grouped as offences of fundamental intent. Considering the presented cases, Kat warns Alfie that he is capable of “getting his head kicked in’ if he persists arguing about the seat. This kind of a threat comprises an assault (mens rea); which consequently incites Alfie to pull back but after poking Kat’s chin with a pen.

Question 2

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FEATURES OF RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT

Sexual assault is a predicament which ascends all socioeconomic parameters; and which impacts millions of people globally. The tragedy is a byproduct of conflict witnessed but yet poorly addressed in many social constructions. A large number of people are suffering from physical, social and psychological perturbations following sexual assaults. All humanitarian sectors carry a duty in the prevention and reaction towards forms of sexual assaults.

Sexual assault is a composition of various crimes which are characterized by the imposition of one’s will on another. Sexual assault refers to an agglomeration of acts which involve bodily contact and those which do not. The following are the main sexual assault crimes under contact sexual assault are; rape, forced penetration, sexual torture, inappropriate fondling, forced kissing and forced touching of body parts. Sexual assault that does not involve contact includes voyeurism, incest, exhibitionism and sexual harassment. Besides, any attempt to propagate the above acts also constitutes sexual assault.

Contrary, rape constitutes of a crimes perpetuated and characterized mainly by the act of a forced penetration. Based on this definition; all rapes are sexual assaults, although sexual assault is not just rape but other sex crimes as well. Rape refers to the illegal penetration of a person against the will of the victim, with application of threats or force, or trying such an act. Rape encompasses physical force and psychological coercion, and forced sexual intercourse means anal, vaginal, or oral penetration by the offender. Besides; Rape equally encompasses incidents on which penetration is done using a foreign object such as bottle victimizations on the males and females victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape constitutes verbal threats of rape.

Both rape and sexual assault are not the victim’s fault. The perpetuators of the crimes do so without the preliminary consent of the victim. The harasser therefore does the act uninvited and unwelcomed. Sexual assault is mainly perpetrated based on five main thresholds. The first threshold is where the sexual contact is done by use of force. Secondly, the contacts are accompanied by threats n the victim. Besides the threats, intimidation can also bear sexual assaults. The use of one’s authority or power to enforce sexual contacts can also be termed as a form of sexual assault. Finally, sexual assault happens when the victim cannot or does not consent.

In UK context, the legal framework describing rape was transformed to clearly exemplify the concept of consent; to reassure the precepts underlying consent, to reaffirm the basic right a person not to perpetrate sexual harassment and to offer an expanded protection to complainants. Despite the close links between rape and sexual assault; the two are different based on the definitions provided above.

Consent refers to the free agreement. In sexual violence contexts, consent is disrespected when a person submits based on the proposition that the victim is overwhelmed by the offender’s physical force; or is frightened of the application of such a force. The person may also submit based on fear of harm of any type inflicted by the offender. When the victim is held captive, asleep, incapacitated, also constitute the bridge of consent. Indecent assault in law is defined as any form of unwanted sexual behavior or touching which is compelled on people against their consent. Sexual assault and rape are thus forms of indecent assaults; which might also encompass forcing someone to masturbate or watch pornography content.

Sexual assault take two forms namely indecent assault and battery; and aggravated sexual assault. Grabbing or slapping one’s private parts without particular consent will team up under indecent assault and battery. However, if the person went further beyond grabbing the private parts to the ground and caused her injury, then the offender may be charged with aggravated indecent assault which can invite harsher disciplinary action.

Conclusion

As presented in the first section, an assault is the act which creates a fear of imminent, offensive, or harmful conduct. On the other hand, battery refers to the crime which is perpetuated when the offensive or harmful conduct is conducted. For battery there ought to be touching whereas if there is no elemental touching but the victim is in fear of touching, then the crime perpetuated becomes an assault. In the case study provided; the punches which Dot perpetrate on Kat is a probable battery based on the premise that they induced him a spleen injury. Besides, Kat punching Alfie prior to Dot’s intervention is also another form of battery; even if he did not hurt him. The punches landed on Alfie but did not cause injury. The two victims therefore Kat and Dot are probable perpetrators of battery crimes.

In the second question, the work has looked into the intrigues of rape and sexual assault. The two crimes have dramatically affected millions of people globally. Besides, the crimes are more interconnected but are distinct from each other. The two vices are all a construct of consent; in that they are perpetuated without the consent of the victim.

Bibliography

• Ambos, K., 2006. Remarks on the general part of international criminal law. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 4(4), pp.660-673.
• Fitzgerald, L.F., 1993. Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace. American Psychologist, 48(10), p.1070.
• Gabrielle Salfati, C. and Taylor, P., 2006. Differentiating sexual violence: A comparison of sexual homicide and rape. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(2), pp.107-125.
• Gardner, J., 1994. Rationality and the rule of law in offences against the person. The Cambridge Law Journal, 53(3), pp.502-523.
• Horder, J., 1994. Rethinking non-fatal offences against the person. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 14(3), pp.335-351.
• Keiler, J., 2013. Actus reus and participation in European criminal law. Maastricht University.
• Lee, S.H.S., Gerberich, S.G., Waller, L.A., Anderson, A. and McGovern, P., 1999. Work-related assault injuries among nurses. Epidemiology, pp.685-691.
• Lott, B., Reilly, M.E. and Howard, D.R., 1982. Sexual assault and harassment: A campus community case study. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8(2), pp.296-319.
• Murphy, J.G., 1991. Gorr on actus reus. Criminal Justice Ethics, 10(1), pp.18-19.
• Ramachandran, G., 2010. Assault and Battery on Property. Loy. LAL Rev., 44, p.253.
• Skogan, W.G. and Block, R., 1983. Resistance and injury in non-fatal assaultive violence. Victimology, 8(3-4), pp.215-226.
• Smith, A.T.H., 1978. On actus reus and mens rea. Reshaping the Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of Glanville Williams (1978) at, 95.
• Svider, P.F., Johnson, A.P., Folbe, A.J., Carron, M.A., Eloy, J.A. and Zuliani, G., 2014. Assault by battery: battery‐related injury in the head and neck. The Laryngoscope, 124(10), pp.2257-2261.