Mark Robertson Sep 9, 2022:

@Paul O'Brian Yes but, the decision of the divisional court in DPP v. Taylor and DPP v. Little stands and is the law pro tem. Accordingly, common assault is a statutory offence, despite the fact that it has no statutory definition. The alternative answer is that common assault is a common law offence, the penalty and mode of trial of which is defined by statute.

Mark Robertson Sep 9, 2022:

@All (correction) Common assault is committed by a person who causes another person to apprehend the immediate use of violence by the defendant. Although the penalty and mode of trial of common assault is provided by section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act, the offence itself has no statutory definition.

There is an outstanding issue whether common assault is or is not a common law offence. In DPP v. Taylor and DPP v. Little the divisional court held that common assault is a statutory offence, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. This decision was criticised and in Haystead v DPP the Divisional court expressed the obiter opinion that common assault remains a common law offence. However, obiter dicta opinions are not binding. The issue has not been considered by the Court of Appeal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault

Nevertheless none of the above impacts the meaning of "common" in common assault, i.e. simple or ordinary. A proof of this is that common assault was referred to as such long before there was any need for a distinction between common assault and statutory offences.

Paul O'Brien Sep 9, 2022:

There you go What is common assault UK law?
Common assault is when a person inflicts violence on someone else or makes them think they are going to be attacked. It does not have to involve physical violence. Threatening words or a raised fist is enough for the crime to have been committed provided the victim thinks that they are about to be attacked.

Assault - Sentencing Councilhttps://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

Mark Robertson Sep 9, 2022:

@All (correction) Common assault is committed by a person who causes another person to apprehend the immediate use of violence by the defendant. Although the penalty and mode of trial of common assault is provided by section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act, the offence itself has no statutory definition.

There is an outstanding issue whether common assault is or is not a common law offence. In DPP v. Taylor and DPP v. Little it was held that common assault is a statutory offence, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. This decision was criticised and in Haystead v DPP the Divisional court expressed the obiter opinion that common assault remains a common law offence. However, obiter dicta opinions are not binding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault

Nevertheless none of the above impacts the meaning of "common" in common assault, i.e. simple or ordinary. A proof of this is that common assault was referred to as such long before there was any need for a distinction between common assault and statutory offences.

Mark Robertson Sep 9, 2022:

@Paul Which aspects of my discussion entry are untrue?

Paul O'Brien Sep 9, 2022:

Not true I have it from a brilliant professor, author and examiner of criminal law in London.

AllegroTrans Sep 9, 2022:

Yes If you can distill any separate meaning out of "common" here (but it really needs to be considered in conjunction with "assault") yes, it means lesser/primary/basic/simple/fundamental etc. I think Mark is correct in saying that the term is not a "carry forward" from "common law". And Paul, it is not a common law offence and has been a statutory offence since 1861.

Mark Robertson Sep 9, 2022:

@All Notwithstanding the fact that concept of criminal assault was created and developed by the courts in case law, it is now defined by statute in the UK and most other common law jurisdictions, although the pre-existing case law continues to apply to the extent that it is not contradicted by statute.

However, assault is not only a crime, but is also a tort in English law and a delict in Scots law, i.e. a civil wrong, which is still entirely a creature of case law, not statute law, in both countries.

There are basically two types of criminal assault: common assault, and aggravated assault (which breaks down into assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and assault occasioning grievous bodily harm).

The "common" in common assault, does not have the same meaning as the "common" in common law, and is merely a synonym of simple.

In committal proceedings in England and Wales, under the 1967 Criminal Justice Act, in the magistrates court can dismiss the charges against the defendant if it is successfully argued that that there is insufficient evidence to put the defendant on trial by jury.

Daryo Sep 9, 2022:

@ Paul O'Brien your interpretation doesn't hold water - at least not today.

What is "Common assault" is **presently** defined by statute (section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault

HOW would you square that with:

Common law offences are crimes under English criminal law, the related criminal law of some Commonwealth countries, and under some U.S. State laws. They are offences under the common law, developed entirely by the law courts, having no specific basis in statute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_offence

Masoud Kakouli Varnousfaderani (asker) Sep 5, 2022:

Thank you all

Paul O'Brien Sep 5, 2022:

@AllegroTrans The "common" in common assault is a reference to the fact that it is a common law crime. Confusingly, many lawyers use the term "common assault" to refer not only to assault but also to battery. Assault strictly speaking consists of intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to apprehend immediate personal violence. So no blow is necessary. Battery is the intentional or reckless infliction of force. So battery does require a blow. Some academics call assault in the strict sense "psychic" assault and battery "physical" assault. In short, if someone uses the term "common assault" you have to investigate whether they mean (i) assault in the loose sense - i.e. including battery or (ii) assault in the strict sense - i.e. limited to psychic assaults. Because of the potential for confusion, assault in the strict sense is probably preferable.

AllegroTrans Sep 5, 2022:

@ Daryo Totally correct

Daryo Sep 5, 2022:

Point of method .... "I need re-stress that I'd like to know the legal meaning of "common" here not the whole phrase."

No, whether you like to hear it or not, you DO need to consider the whole of "Common assault" as ONE term / one "unit of meaning".

And it's more important to put "Common assault" in context compared to other types of "assault" than to worry about "common" as a context-free term floating in the middle of nowhere.

Mark Robertson Sep 4, 2022:

@Masoud A common assault (also called simple assault) is an assault, which is not an aggravated assault.

An aggravated assault is criminal assault accompanied by circumstances that make it more severe, such as the intent to commit another crime, or the intent to cause serious bodily injury, esp. by using a deadly weapon.

Blacks Legal Dictionary, 11th Edition, page 141.

Paul O'Brien Sep 4, 2022:

@AllegroTrans ALL criminal cases start in the MC.

AllegroTrans Sep 4, 2022:

Nope Murder ALWAYS goes to the Crown Court and is tried by a jury if the defendant pleads not guilty. The magistrates have no power other than to order an immediate transfer to the Crown Court.

Paul O'Brien Sep 4, 2022:

@AllegroTrans Yes, murder also goes to the magistrate's court. As for common assault, yes, butvthe defendant's coinsel might raise case law. You don't just sit back and let the magistrates (usually morons) decide on everything. Anyway, statutory ysually concerns the sentence. I can still cite case law with a murder offence to get the charge brought down to, say involuntary manslaughter.

Masoud Kakouli Varnousfaderani (asker) Sep 4, 2022:

@Tony I did know that but there are some reasons I needed to know that, thanks anyway all

Tony M Sep 4, 2022:

@ Asker This is one of those cases where a simplistic, word-by-word approach doesn't apply: you need to treat the expression as a whole.
The idea of 'common' in this rather archaic expression is along the lines of 'ordinary', not special' — as A/T has said , the least serious form of assault in the eyes of the law.

AllegroTrans Sep 4, 2022:

@ Paul Most common assault cases are heard summarily by magistrates and there is little or no reference to case law. The matter rests on the facts.

Paul O'Brien Sep 4, 2022:

@Masoud It need not involve physical violence. The victim need only PERCEIVE the imminent threat of violence for assault to be committed. In other words, there need be no battery as such.

Paul O'Brien Sep 4, 2022:

@AllegroTrans Oh yes, I agree, but the specifics can only be decided by the judge, who, on the basis of case law, will determine whether or not it falls under the statutory definition.

AllegroTrans Sep 4, 2022:

Masoud You will not find a separate legal definition of "common"
You already have a definition of "common assault"
However, this is from the Free Dictionary:
Common also means habitual or recurring, such as offenses that are committed frequently or repeatedly. A common thief is one who has been repeatedly convicted of Larceny. Something that is common is owned equally by two or more people, such as a piece of land.

Masoud Kakouli Varnousfaderani (asker) Sep 4, 2022:

@all I need re-stress that I'd like to know the legal meaning of "common" here not the whole phrase.

AllegroTrans Sep 4, 2022:

@ Paul Common assault is defined by statute. It first became a stautory offence in 1861.

Paul O'Brien Sep 4, 2022:

What do you want to know? What is or is not "common assault" can only be determined by the judge on the basis of case law.