degree of assault

ldxo15wus6fpgm

I've trawled through an astounding number of threads on assault in this forum but can't really find much that's relevant.

I've got a hypothetical situation here I'd like some opinions on!
Of course, no legal advice.

Let's say a friend of mine recently got an unexpected visit from their next door neighbour. The neighbour deliberately smashed some glass out of my friend's front door and my friend said it appeared as though he was about to try and reach through the glass to open the door (he raised his hand up to the glass - when my friend went over he quickly put his arm back down) and when my mate went over to the door the neighbour started screaming repeatedly he was going to murder him. After standing at the door demanding to be let in, shouting abuse and death threats he walked off the property.

Now, let's say it turns out that my mate had had a house party the night before which had been loud until around 11pm when someone from the same house next door (not the same person) complained it was keeping their kids up and the noise was immediately cut and it remained quiet for the night after that. Then the night of the incident one of my friend's housemates had 3 or 4 people over and had very quiet music going.

Let's say the actual incident took place before 9pm.
He would of course have immediately rang the Gardai and they showed up, took details etc. and they seem to have ignored the fact that death threats are an arrestable offence, but that's their call to make.

Here's what I want opinions on - the friend claims he is now very unsettled in the house and nervous about coming/going from the house. The guy never actually touched him but I would tell him that in theory at least, violence/aggression accompanied by believable verbal threats would be enough. However, I'm aware that in many cases practice is very different to theory. Are there many successful civil claims for assault where there was no actual physical contact with the claimant, merely serious aggression/threats?
Basically, what degree of assault is necessary for a successful civil action in Ireland?

Thanks for reading.

Tom Young

Q. 1: Some actions, yes;
Q. 2: Apprehension is enough. Proof and a trial would be extremely costly and stressful.

Criminal Damage arises; Criminal Assault may arise, etc.

The Gardai didn't pursue for some reason.

Opinion: Don't pursue a civil claim, if you've to live in the same locality.

Procrastastudy

If it were not assize time!

I'd say have a google / youtube for some definitions/discussions or assault.

MagicSean

Simply threatening to kill someone is not a crime. There is an aspect of intent that is required.

Criminal damage, breach of the peace and trespassing are criminal offences that could apply in this situation.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

Simply threatening to kill someone is not a crime. There is an aspect of intent that is required.

Criminal damage, breach of the peace and trespassing are criminal offences that could apply in this situation.

Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act

Section


2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,


Section 5


Threats to kill or cause serious harm.

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,

BTW section 2 can be prosecuted as a common informer.

Nt really sure as a civil case the usual in civil assault is trespass on the person not sure, if the example would be trespass on the person.

Tom Young

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_(tort)

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act

Section


2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,


Section 5


Threats to kill or cause serious harm.

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,

BTW section 2 can be prosecuted as a common informer.

Nt really sure as a civil case the usual in civil assault is trespass on the person not sure, if the example would be trespass on the person.

Not really sure why you quoted my post. Like I said Section 5 requires an element of intent and section 2 doesn't seem to apply at all here.

Procrastastudy

Do you need to intend the threat or the action contained within the threat? Honest (but probably stupid) question.

Tom Young

OP is asking about Civil Assault. Hello?!

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

Not really sure why you quoted my post. Like I said Section 5 requires an element of intent and section 2 doesn't seem to apply at all here.

In my opinion both section 2 and 5 are possibly set out in the OP

"Let's say a friend of mine recently got an unexpected visit from their next door neighbour. The neighbour deliberately smashed some glass out of my friend's front door and my friend said it appeared as though he was about to try and reach through the glass to open the door (he raised his hand up to the glass - when my friend went over he quickly put his arm back down) and when my mate went over to the door the neighbour started screaming repeatedly he was going to murder him. After standing at the door demanding to be let in, shouting abuse and death threats he walked off the property."

The intention in section 5 is only "intending the other to believe it will be carried out".

"the friend claims he is now very unsettled in the house and nervous about coming/going from the house"

Seems to me the guy was put in fear of force being applied to his body so section 2.

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

In my opinion both section 2 and 5 are possibly set out in the OP

"Let's say a friend of mine recently got an unexpected visit from their next door neighbour. The neighbour deliberately smashed some glass out of my friend's front door and my friend said it appeared as though he was about to try and reach through the glass to open the door (he raised his hand up to the glass - when my friend went over he quickly put his arm back down) and when my mate went over to the door the neighbour started screaming repeatedly he was going to murder him. After standing at the door demanding to be let in, shouting abuse and death threats he walked off the property."

The intention in section 5 is only "intending the other to believe it will be carried out".

"the friend claims he is now very unsettled in the house and nervous about coming/going from the house"

Seems to me the guy was put in fear of force being applied to his body so section 2.

For section 2 it has to be a fear of the immediate application of force. He put his hand down when the friend approached so I can't see how that would indicate an assault was incoming.

Do you honestly think the guy expected the person to believe he was going to kill him?

krd

MagicSean wrote: »

For section 2 it has to be a fear of the immediate application of force. He put his hand down when the friend approached so I can't see how that would indicate an assault was incoming.

No, he removed his hand because he wasn't stupid. If someone breaks a glass panel and puts their hand through the door - a person on the other side can grab their hand, pull it into a lock - or even into the broken glass. Or even use a kitchen knife to cut their hand.

Do you honestly think the guy expected the person to believe he was going to kill him?

Hmmmmm......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_C4f7JKVfQ

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Ok, let's say my friend has said that he seriously thought the guy was going to harm him, if only for a second or two. (I'm sure this would be extremely difficult to prove)

I take it that death threats plus the physical aggression alone wouldn't be enough so? Only the actual fear of being physically attacked is what's important?

EDIT: As for the criminal aspect, I'm fairly sure in this case the aggressor would be guilty of s.5 under NFOAPAct for threats to kill/cause serious harm - from the story I've given it's pretty clear he intended my friend to believe that he was about to be subject to at least serious harm.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

For section 2 it has to be a fear of the immediate application of force. He put his hand down when the friend approached so I can't see how that would indicate an assault was incoming.

Do you honestly think the guy expected the person to believe he was going to kill him?

A person is in there house minding there own business, a neighbor comes to the door, smashes the glass in the door, tries to gain entry. Then withdraws there hand and screams abuse. I think a lot of people would be in fear of the immediate application of force.

If a person smashed the glass on my door over me having a party, and then screamed he was going to kill me I would believe it. The fact that the attacker has already damaged property would imply he is capable of violence and intends for the victim to believe he will do him harm.

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

A person is in there house minding there own business, a neighbor comes to the door, smashes the glass in the door, tries to gain entry. Then withdraws there hand and screams abuse. I think a lot of people would be in fear of the immediate application of force.

If a person smashed the glass on my door over me having a party, and then screamed he was going to kill me I would believe it. The fact that the attacker has already damaged property would imply he is capable of violence and intends for the victim to believe he will do him harm.

If there is a door between two people there is no chance of immediate force being applied.

You couod argue the section 5 alright but I think it should be retained for genuine threats to kill. Breach of the peace and the public order act is more appropriate for a situation like this.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

If there is a door between two people there is no chance of immediate force being applied.

You couod argue the section 5 alright but I think it should be retained for genuine threats to kill. Breach of the peace and the public order act is more appropriate for a situation like this.

A door that he had just smashed the glass in, with the obvious intention of gaining entry, I would think that would put a reasonable person in fear of immediate force being applied to his person.

anncoates

Sounds like the partying may have been a bit more noisy than admitted If the neighbour lost it to that extent.