Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
15 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Innes v Wylie and Others
|
Must be a positive act.
|
|
Reynolds v Clarke
|
Must be direct, cannot be consequential.
|
|
Gray v Barr
|
Assault must be an act the defendant intended to do - There is no need to have intended the consequences, particularly if they were a reasonable result of the actions.
|
|
Scott v Shepherd
|
Must be direct - Any intervening acts made out of necessity still constitute directness.
|
|
Stephens v Myers
|
Assault must be a positive act /directly/ threatening battery, but which does not result in battery.
|
|
Barton v Armstrong; Zanker v Varzokas
|
If the threat produces a /fear/ of immediate battery, then it is assault, even if no /immediate/ battery was actually intended or threatened.
|
|
Brady v Scahtzel
|
Fear is not a component; that a reasonable person would expect battery is the only issue.
|
|
Tuberville v Savage
|
A condition placed on a threat can prevent it being an assault.
|
|
Hall v Fonceca
|
Plaintiff must prove the defendant intended to create the apprehension of battery.
|
|
Herd v Weardale Steel
|
Must be a positive act, or inaction were an obligation to act is present.
|
|
Bird v Jones
|
Must be a total restraint - Blocking off one route does not constitute false imprisonment where others are available.
|
|
Symes v Mahon
|
Words can be sufficient to entail complete deprivation of freedom if backed by authority.
|
|
Myer Stores v Soo
|
Being cowed by numbers is sufficient to achieve total restraint.
|
|
Murray v Minister of Defence
|
Awareness of imprisonment at the time is not necessary, the only relevant factor is total restraint.
|
|
Marion's Case
|
Content required to be proven by defendant.
|