For "common assault" the bar is set at a very low level. A mere touch; spitting at someone; even waving your fist at them without touching can be common assault. So in practice, common assault is such a trivial matter that it is hardly ever prosecuted. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are not interested. It is assault occasioning actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm (ABH or GBH) which are often prosecuted, and GBH is a very serious offence. Bodily harm means injuries, ranging from bruises and abrasions, to cuts, broken bones, and serious permanent disability.
Thanks Pete. That clarifies the definitions of various types of assault in terms even I can understand! However, I'm ever less clear about why there is the big hoo ha and ongoing debate about smacking. Seems to be covered by the above. If smacking was the same level of severity as common assault, would it get the same level of interest? If so, why bother? If not, why would it not be covered by ABH or GBH? Open questions to the forum, not just to Pete.
Children should be seen and not heard , Regular beatings . Corpral punishment , justly applied and not to excess is a workable tool OR GET SMART..... like me ...... no kids ( fuck that ... I might of had one like me ) that way it doesn't matter what the little c-nuts get up to .:biggrin:
So you were probably hoping they were only going to smack you when they took your trousers down . . . Suffer little children to come unto me
Hitting a child or an adult is, obviously, always an assault. If the assault is of a very minor and limited nature, it is most unlikely to result in prosecution even if it is technically illegal. The more serious the consequences in terms of injuries, the more likely a prosecution becomes - again regardless if it is a child or an adult. I think the argument about "smacking" is really about possible defences to an accusation of assault. If you are accused of assault, your defence might be that you didn't do it, or it was self-defence, or it was accidental, or it was done to protect someone from worse harm. Assuming those defences do not apply, if you are accused of hitting your child are you able to say in your defence that you were legally entitled to hit the child as a matter of discipline? Historically, husbands were entitled to beat their wives, masters were entitled to beat their servants, and prison guards were entitled to beat their prisoners. Those days are now gone, but the present-day issue is whether parents are, or should be, entitled to beat their children.
Complete cobblers In that case so does pat and tap. An assault is an attack intending to cause harm without benefit. disciplining with reasonable mild force in a child's best interest is NOT an assault.
Actually it was cleared in law a while ago, a smack which does not leave a mark is NOT assault. If you start inflicting injury (I.e. leaving bruises or marks) you have crossed the line between a smack and a beating. They are different things, with a clear and definable line between them.
Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. It is inaccurate in every particular. If you want to start assigning your own idiosyncratic definitions to words, that's your privilege. The law of England and Wales, however, has very well-established definitions for words like "assault" and those are the meanings which actually apply.
I'd suggest doing some research - it went through the courts about five years ago and was CLEARLY defined in context. You are referring to assault in a non disciplinary context. Law is far more intricate than one word one meaning.
This might clarify why a definition varies in context. http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/family/children/parental_advice/500558.html Under current UK law, smacking is NOT currently assault WITHIN CONTEXT of reasonable chastisement. If applied to an adult it would be, hence the importance if context.
