R v Venna [1976] QB 421, [1975] Crim. L.R. 701

Oxford First-Class Criminal Law Notes


Go to shop

Premium
View

PQ
Guide

Model
Answers

Key Point

  • Mens rea of assault: D intended or was reckless that the victim would apprehend imminent unlawful force

Facts

  • D violently resisted arrest for causing a disturbance, fracturing the hand of a police officer in the process
  • D was convicted with assault occasioning actual bodily harm
  • D appealed on the basis that the judge erred in directing that recklessness in applying physical force was sufficient

Held (Court of Appeal)

  • Appeal dismissed – recklessness sufficed to convict D

Jones LJ

  • ‘We see no reason in logic or in law why a person who recklessly applies physical force to the person of another should be outside the criminal law of assault. In many cases the dividing line between intention and recklessness is barely distinguishable. This is such a case.’

Get tutored by top graduates from Oxbridge

Sign Up
Feedback