Assault

"A person intentionally creates apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in another."
(Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd)

1) Intentional Act
D must have intended to act. Need not be ill intent.

2) Apprehension of Imminent Harmful/Offensive Contact

P must anticipate physical contact (battery) in fear, knowledge, or expectation that it will happen.
 Focus is on the mind of the P, not whether D was going to carry out the threat.

Barton v Armstrong - (objective test based on reasonable person)

Would threat raise apprehension in mind of a reasonable person?
*Threat made over telephone. Held: matter of circumstances and creation of fear of immediate
injury in reas person. Some threats constitute assault even if in future, unspecified, uncertain.

MacPherson v Beath - (subjective test based on particular P)

If the D intends to create an apprehension in the mind of the P, then is sufficient; if the D acts
recklessly, the matter is not beyond doubt.

3) Directness
Consider: nature of threat, content of threat, means of making threat, conditional/unconditional.

Assault can occur even if D could not have committed a battery

Stephens v Myers: D was tackled by 3rd party before he could hit P => Assault
Brady v Schatzel, McLelland v Symonds: Pointing an unloaded gun => Assault

Conditional threats do not always negate assault (Rozsa v Samuels)

*P taxi driver upset when D driver jumped taxi queue; walked up, threatened to punch D. D
produced table knife, responded "I will cut you to bits if you try it".

Words can qualify or disqualify an action as an assault

Police v Greaves: Words + threatening gestures => Assault

Tuberville v Savage (Words + threatening gesture => Not assault)

*Words showed no intention of battery despite the threatening gesture

Fogden v Wade (Words + ambiguous action => Assault)

*Accused followed woman home at close distance in dark, then suggested sex

Innes v Wylie: *Policeman stood in way of entry to room.

No gestures/words to arouse apprehension => no assault.

If words convey immediate intention to battery, no physical gestures necessary (Read v Coker)

Can occur with mere words over telephone if results in reasonable apprehension (Barton)

Threat of Future Violence? Test: is apprehension present and continuing? (Zanker v Vartzokas)
*P accepted lift from D; D offered money for sexual favours. P rejected,
Need considerable certainty that threat will be carried out, and P subject to Ds control.

4) Defences