Assault Vs Battery

Firstly, one similarity of assault and battery is that they both form the mens rea. For example, both intention and recklessness form mens rea. The mens rea of assault is content when the defendant intends to cause the victim to apprehend violence or does it recklessly. This can be found in the case of R v Savage (1991), a woman threw a pint of beer over the victim’s head in a pub. The glass slipped out of her hand, smashed and cut the victims wrist. The victim was the defendant’s husband’s ex-girlfriend so there was tension between them. The defendant said it was never her intention to throw glass. The prosecution only needed to prove that the defendant wanted to soak her victim with beer and not to actually harm her beyond this. Similarly,
For example, direct intention means a desire for result. So for assault, the test would be if the defendant desired to apprehend violence. An example of this is in the case of R v Ireland. This is where the defendant terrorised the victim, who suffered psychiatric injury with silent phone calls. Whereas, for battery, the test is objective. In the case R v Roberts, the defendant was in a car with a 21-year-old woman, they were travelling between two parties. The defendant touched the victim inappropriately which resulted in her jumping out the car, sustaining injuries. The proper test for occasioning, is not whether the defendant foresaw the behaviour of the victim but whether the behaviour could have reasonably been foreseen as the consequence of what he was doing/saying. The difference is, for assault the defendant desired to apprehend violence whereas for battery, the defendant was reckless as to whether such harm would be
For example, in the case of R v Logdon (1976) the defendant pointed a replica gun at the victim as a joke. The victim was terrified until he told her it was a fake pistol. It was held that the victim apprehended immediate violence and the defendant was reckless as to whether this would occur. Likewise, for battery, even if the victim is touched, no injuries required. E.g. R v Roberts, the defendant was in a car with a 21-year-old woman, they were travelling between two parties. The defendant touched the victim inappropriately which resulted in her jumping out the car, sustaining injuries. Therefore, no injuries are needed to be