Key Point
- Actus reus for assault can include omission where D exposed the victim to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury through his acts or speech, and that force does not have to be applied by D directly
- However, note that this case not strong authority and has been doubted by commentators
Facts
- Police officer undertook a full body search of a suspect, D
- When asked if he had any sharp items on him, D denied it
- Police officer subsequently injured himself on a hypodermic needle in D’s pocket, D then shrugged and smirked
- D was acquitted of assault by the Crown Court on the basis that D had not committed a positive act and an omission did not amount to assault
Held (High Court)
- Appeal allowed – D convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm
- Where someone by act or word or a combination of the two created a danger and thereby exposed another to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury which materialised the actus reus for assault is satisfied
- D by giving dishonest assurance had exposed the police officer to the risk reasonably foreseeable risk of injury that materialised, and thus there was actus reus for assault
Get tutored by top graduates from Oxbridge
Sign Up