‘We see no reason in logic or in law why a person who recklessly applies physical force to the person of another should be outside the criminal law of assault. In many cases the dividing line between intention and recklessness is barely distinguishable. This is such a case.’.

2024年1月4日 · In the early hours, the defendant and a group of youths caused a disturbance despite police intervention. The defendant resisted arrest violently, leading to a fractured hand of an arresting officer. He faced charges of threatening behavior and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, resulting in conviction.

R v Venna [1975] 3 WLR 737 Court of Appeal The defendant was causing a disturbance with three others in the early hours of the morning by singing shouting and bashing dust bin lids. The police were called. An officer called Leach went to investigate. He tried to reason with them and told them to go home quietly. The four continued in defiance.

The Court of Appeal affirmed Venna's conviction for threatening behaviour and assault, rejecting the arguments challenging the legal basis of the charges and the adequacy of defense presentation. This case underscores the importance of legal clarity and thorough defense strategies in criminal proceedings.

This is an appeal against conviction by Henson George Venna who, on 6th December, 1974, in the Crown Court at Gloucester, was convicted of threatening behaviour contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act, 1936, and of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

2024年7月9日 · R v Venna contributes to the understanding of recklessness as a valid mental element in assault cases. The decision clarifies that deliberately engaging in an act, even if the specific consequences are not intended, can lead to an assault conviction if physical harm occurs.

The mens rea of battery is established where the defendant intended to inflict that force or was subjectively reckless as to whether that force was inflicted: R v Venna [1976] QB 421. Any amount of force (including mere touching), no matter how slight, will suffice: R …

2019年8月14日 · The case of R v Venna confirmed the need for there to be such ‘intention’ or ‘recklessness’ present which would put the victim in fear of ‘imminent unlawful violence.’ This view was also agreed upon in the House of Lords decision of R v Savage and Parmenter.

R v Venna [1975]: The trial judge directed the jury that the need not find that the appellant intended to kick the officer in order to convict; rather, it was sufficient for them to find that the appellant 'reckless as to

Cases: R v Ireland: D made a number of silent phone calls to woman the victims apprehended immediate force as they didn’t know what D was gonna do next which is sufficient for assault. Logan v DPP: D showed V a gun that was loaded although it was fake but it wasn’t obvious from its appearance and V felt frightened so D was convicted of assault.