Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Citation: [1997] Crim LR 576
Statute Involved: Section 47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
R v Constanza is a significant decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the law of assault under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The case clarified important principles relating to whether words alone may constitute an assault and how the concept of “immediacy” should be understood in the context of apprehended violence.
The decision also addressed whether a victim must see the perpetrator in order for an assault to be established.
Facts of R v Constanza Case
In R v Constanza, the defendant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against a female former colleague.
Over a period of almost two years, the defendant engaged in persistent and distressing conduct directed at the victim. He followed her home from work, made numerous silent telephone calls, and wrote over 800 letters to her.
In addition to these actions, he drove past her house, visited her house without her consent, and wrote offensive words on her house’s door on three separate occasions. After these events, the victim received two further letters containing threatening language.
As a consequence of this sustained behaviour, the victim was diagnosed by a doctor as suffering from clinical depression and anxiety. The medical evidence linked her condition to the apprehended fear caused by the defendant’s conduct and correspondence.
The prosecution argued that the defendant’s actions amounted to assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Legal Issues
The Court of Appeal in R v Constanza considered two central issues.
First, whether words alone, without any physical action against the victim, could amount to an assault.
Secondly, whether the victim’s fear satisfied the requirement of apprehension of immediate and unlawful violence for the purposes of assault under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The defence contended that physical action was necessary to constitute assault. It was also argued that the fear experienced by the victim did not relate to violence that was sufficiently immediate.
Arguments on Appeal
The defendant appealed against his conviction on the basis that the case ought not to have been left to the jury. It was submitted that the violence feared by the victim had not been sufficiently immediate. The argument was that, because the victim could not see the defendant at the time of receiving the letters or experiencing fear, the element of immediacy was lacking.
It was further argued that an assault could not be committed solely by words and that some form of physical action was required to establish the offence.
These arguments required the Court of Appeal to examine both the role of words in constituting assault and the meaning of immediacy in the context of apprehended violence.
R v Constanza Judgement
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in R v Constanza and upheld the conviction.
The Court held that words alone are capable of constituting an assault if they cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. It rejected the submission that physical action was always necessary. The presence or absence of physical contact was not decisive; what mattered was whether the victim apprehended violence.
On the question of immediacy, the Court stated that, for the purposes of proving assault, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the victim feared violence “at some time not excluding the immediate future.” The fear need not be of violence that is instantaneous. However, it would not be correct to leave a case to the jury where the anticipated violence was only in the distant future.
In the circumstances of the case, the Court placed emphasis on the proximity of the defendant’s house to the victim’s and on his delivery of recent letters to her house. These factors supported the conclusion that the victim believed that violence could occur at any time. The judge had therefore been entitled to leave the question of apprehended immediate violence to the jury.
The Court also held that it is for the prosecution to prove that fear was in the victim’s mind. The manner in which that fear arose was not determinative. Conduct accompanying words could make those words amount to an assault.
Conclusion
R v Constanza is a leading case on assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Court of Appeal confirmed that words alone can constitute assault, that the victim need not see the perpetrator, and that fear of violence “not excluding the immediate future” is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of immediacy. By dismissing the appeal, the Court reinforced the principle that causing a victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence, even through written or verbal communication, may amount to criminal liability.