On 03/06/2012 23:19, John Williamson wrote:
My apologies, the attributes got mixed up and I thought I was replying
to Rod Speed. This is the corrected post.

On 03/06/2012 21:48, H. Neary wrote:

People (usually young women) walk out in front of my car all the time,
totally impervious to anything but their mobiles. Luckily my reflexes
have saved them from injury and me from a long drawn out sequence of
police interviews and paperwork sessions.

If they get flattened by someone else I would lose no sleep at all.
The fact that someone is about to walk under a bus or lorry under
their own free will, is no excuse to assault them.



Please get your definition of assault correct.

http://sixthformlaw.info/03_dictionary/dict_a.htm and the case law on
that page in the appropriate paragraph is relevant.

It defines assault under the English legal system as requiring "an act
(noting DPP v Santa-Bermudez (2003) DC) accompanied by a hostile intent
calculated to cause apprehension in the mind of the victim". Poking
someone to get their attention while they are talking on a mobile phone
does *not* constitute assault. On the other hand, just telling them
firmly but politely that if they don't finish the call *now* you'll
knock them out, could constitute what the police call Common Assault,
although the penalty for that is minimal.

If there is no hostile intent, then "Where the hostile intent is not
present, there will be no assault (R v Lamb [1967] CA) unless it is
proved that the alleged assailant was reckless as to whether the
complainant would apprehend immediate and unlawful violence." applies.

Even in the bad old days when I was stuying law, both an action and
hostile intent were required to prove assault.


Or, to put it another way, if you don't know what you're talking about,
STFU.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.