Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Threats to kill

  • 04-12-2011 11:44pm
    #1
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭


    Would threats to kill come under the tort of assault or would it be something else?


Comments

  • #2
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/sec0005.html#sec5
    5.—(1) A person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another a threat, by any means intending the other to believe it will be carried out, to kill or cause serious harm to that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence,

    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

    (a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

    (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to both.


  • #3
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Actually I'm wondering about civil law as opposed to criminal.


  • #4
    birdie89
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 140 ✭✭birdie89


    i think it would come under the tort of assault.....assault is of the body and of the mind. if the person who receives the threat believes that they are in real, imminent danger then it is assault


  • #5
    Corruptable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 317 ✭✭Corruptable


    If it causes reasonable apprehension, as per common law, it would be assault under Tort. However it would differ from negligence because it's what you could call an "intentional tort".

    It would have to be proven by the plaintiff that:

    1. apprehension of physical contact
    2. reasonable apprehension in mind
    3. the assault was intentional

    From Connolly's Nutshell on Tort it appears very similar to criminal law on the subject. However, words are generally not enough unless they are accompanied by actions which could be perceived as a possible assault. Cases:

    Dullaghan v Hillen [1975] Ir.Jur.Rep. 10, Tubberville v Savage [1669] 86 ER 684, R v Ireland [1998] AC 147.


  • #6
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Corruptable wrote: »
    If it causes reasonable apprehension, as per common law, it would be assault under Tort. However it would differ from negligence because it's what you could call an "intentional tort".

    It would have to be proven by the plaintiff that:

    1. apprehension of physical contact
    2. reasonable apprehension in mind
    3. the assault was intentional

    From Connolly's Nutshell on Tort it appears very similar to criminal law on the subject. However, words are generally not enough unless they are accompanied by actions which could be perceived as a possible assault. Cases:

    Dullaghan v Hillen [1975] Ir.Jur.Rep. 10, Tubberville v Savage [1669] 86 ER 684, R v Ireland [1998] AC 147.
    +1

    Words alone are almost never enough. Also intent has two categories of general and specific intent which should be considered.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement