Assault is part of the tort of trespass to the person, which also includes battery and false imprisonment.

There are various rules laid out when the courts decide whether or not it would be appropriate to impose liability, therefore in order to claim compensation fast the rules must be adhered to and applied the individual facts of the case.

For an assault claim to be successful there is no requirement for any physical contact between the defendant and the claimant. The claimant does not need to have suffered any harm as long as he or she apprehends that some harm will occur. The modern definition of assault is that a person commits assault where he intentionally and directly causes the claimant to apprehend that he is to be the victim of battery.

In other words, the defendant must intentionally cause the claimant to fear that the unlawful force will be applied to them. The intention involved is the intention to create apprehension or fear in the claimant rather than what the defendant is actually intending to do. So in effect, it does not matter whether the defendant will inflict violence or not, or indeed whether there is any contact with the other party at all.

In the case of Blake v Barnard (1840) the defendant pointed an unloaded gun at the claimant but there was no assault because the harm could not be carried out. This was originally a subjective test from the point of view of the defendant, but would now be an objective test based on the fear of the reasonable man.

An assault does require some active behaviour, as a passive state is insufficient for liability to be imposed. This was shown in the case of Innes v Wylie (1844) in which there was no assault where a police officer merely stood at a door and barred entry. His behaviour was passive through obstruction, but there was no indication of any potential harm to the claimant. This decision may also have been affected by policy reasons in that the courts would be more willing to protect a police officer so as not to prevent him from doing his job effectively.

Threatening behaviour can amount to an assault, provided that it includes some form of active behaviour. For example, in the case of Read v Coker (1853) the claimant owed the defendant rent, and when the defendant told the claimant to leave the premises he refused. The defendant then ordered some of his employees to see the claimant off the premises, therefore these men rolled up their sleeves after surrounding the claimant and threatening to break his neck if he did not leave. This was enough to form an assault, therefore the court imposed liability.

Where there is an attempt to commit a battery, that is to say the application of unlawful force, but this is thwarted or prevented, then it may still amount to an assault if the party threatened is put in fear of a possible battery. In the case of Stephen v Myers (1830) the defendant, at a political meeting, tried to attack the claimant, who was a speaker at the meeting. He was prevented from doing so since he was apprehended as he launched himself towards the claimant. There was still an assault present in the attack because initially the claimant could apprehend imminent personal danger.

It must be possible for the threats to be carried out but for the intervention of others to prevent it, as otherwise the claimant would have no reason to fear any possible harm. For example, in the case of Smith v Superintendent of Woking (1983) the defendant entered the ground of a private house and appeared at the bedroom window of a bedsit, which seriously frightened the occupant. This was held to be an assault because the claimant was in fear for their own safety.

Whether or not words alone can amount to an assault is more problematic. The traditional view was that they could not, yet silence has been accepted because of its ability to assail a person with uncertainty. This was evident in the criminal cases of R v Ireland and R v Burstow, which were joint appeals involving silent phone calls that caused the victims of each case to suffer psychological harm. The House of Lords accepted that a person who uses silence in order to produce apprehension of immediate violence in others is guilty of an assault. Such rules should be observed before beginning litigation as a means to claim compensation fast.

Useful Links:
The Law Society
Criminal Injury
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
Website Terms of Use