Talk:Common assault

Defined by?
I am just a little confused on this article as in the introductory paragraph it states that assault is defined in s39 of the CJA 1988 yet further on into the article, it says that the offence is not defined by the said Act of Parliament only the sentence is defined.

I would normally change such an anomaly myself straight away, but I'd like to hear what other editors have to say. --Dean Sharpe 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect first line
"common assault is a crime when the defendant apprehends immediate use of unlawful violence"

- this should be either "a victim" apprehends, or "defendant causes another to apprehend", as I don't think it is a crime to apprehend violence! 90.205.51.234 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree this first line is confusing and could be worded in a non-legalistic way, given that the full definition follows. Agentwhim (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Assault on a constable
This is a species of aggravated assault. I think that in this context "common" means "not aggavated". I suggest that this section belongs in a discussion of aggravated assaults generally.James500 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This material has now been moved to Assault because it does not belong on this page. It will probably be necessary to create a separate article for that offence. James500 (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside the scope of this article
I think that the discussion of actual bodily harm contained in the paragraph below is outside of the scope of this article, so I have moved it to this page until I decide what to do with it:

The distinction between common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, lies in the degree of injury that results. Actual bodily harm is more than “transitory” but less than “really serious injury” which is the definition of grievous bodily harm under sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. James500 (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have cut the words in italics because this article is not about blackmail.James500 (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

More generally, if the defendant threatens injury tomorrow, the victim has the opportunity to take avoiding action although this might form a “menace” within the meaning of section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 for the purposes of blackmail.

Introduction very confusing
The introduction section to this article is one of the worst I've read on Wikipedia. Even after four readings I don't understand most of what it is trying to say as it contradicts itself over at least two issues and uses seemingly random tense. Normally I would try and fix these sorts of problems myself but I don't have time to spend figuring out what it is trying to say before I can even start to work out how to fix it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The introduction does not contradict itself or use random tense.James500 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It does and it makes utterly no sense and keeps referring to statute law which is pointless in an article about COMMON LAW assault... the whole article needs deleting and starting from scratch94.168.204.89 (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The word "common" in common assault does not mean "common law", it means "not aggravated". James500 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not the introduction that is badly written. It is the case law on this subject that is the problem. James500 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In order to write that common assault is still a common law offence, and not a statutory offence, you are going to have to show that the decision on that point in DPP v Taylor, DPP v Little has been over-ruled in a subsequent case. Can you do that? James500 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

you really don't get it do you, it not one or the other, it's either or, both exist both are enforceable

common law hasn't been removed from the face of the earth you know... it is the law of the land in England which the queen swore to uphold in here coronation oath and police swear to uphold in there oath of office. Just because we enshrine things into statute law for ease of administration does not mean we got rid off common law... please get a brain and make sure it is turned on94.168.204.89 (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In order to write that common assault is still a common law offence, and not a statutory offence, you are going to have to show that the decision on that point in DPP v Taylor, DPP v Little has been over-ruled in a subsequent case. Can you do that? James500 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)