Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

11
  • Assault is probably still applicable here but when there's contact it's battery. oblaw.co.uk/assault-v-battery-what-is-the-difference
    – Sam Dean
    Commented 2 days ago
  • If shooting, this could also be murder or attempted murder. Programming a robot to do this is clearly premeditated.
    – Graham
    Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    @SamDean That's not quite right. Battery is just a type of assault (but carries a much lower sentence than assault occasioning grievous bodily harm under s18 or s20 of the OAPA). No prosecutor would pursue battery in this case unless the physical contact is so minor that it neither results in actual bodily harm nor grievous bodily harm.
    – FD_bfa
    Commented 2 days ago
  • @Graham That's certainly true, although premeditation is not necessary for a murder or attempted murder conviction in E&W (it would certainly affect the length of the sentence though!)
    – FD_bfa
    Commented 2 days ago
  • 2
    @SophieSwett The need for the actus reus and mens rea to coincide has many exceptions. In R v Le Brun [1991], Lord Lane said that where the unlawful application of force and the eventual act causing death were part of the same sequence of events, the entire series of events would constitute a single transaction. This also works in reverse too: in Fagan v MPC [1969], Fagan accidentally parked his car on a policeman's foot (no mens rea). However, after this, he refused to move his car. Fagan was convicted, despite the actus reus and mens rea failing to align
    – FD_bfa
    Commented 2 days ago