Building 13 Room 3019

May it please your Lordship, I, Jay Johnson, appear on behalf of the junior counsel for the appellant in this caseWith regards to the second ground of appeal the issue is whether the jury were misdirected on the law relating to assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the offences against the person act 1861.Without prejudice to my learned senior’s submission; should my Lords not be swayed by his submission I respectfully submit that the law in this area to be modified in order to minimise injustice.

First Submission: No Assault committedAssault is committed where the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence Aware assault can be committed through words but in this case there was no intention to do soIt was simply a verbal exchange between the two parties. Mr Plank just answered a question

I am now going to refer you to the highlighted section on page 3 in the case of the Crown and Roberts which can be found in volume 56 of the criminal appeal reports for the year 1972, page 95.Summary of factsLJ Stephenson stated: Roberts’s version is, “we were arguing. I had nothing to do with her jumping out of the car. It was merely the result of a verbal battle. She suddenly opened the door and before I could do anything she had gone” If that be right, there was no assault. Certainly you would acquit on that charge.This can be related - verbal battle - obiter applied - no assault - appeal allowed.

Second Submission:I submit to you my lord that in this case the injuries of Mr Walker were not brought about by any decision made by the defendant.

I am now going to refer you to the highlighted section on page 4 in the case of the crown and Blaue which can be found in volume 1 of the Weekly Law Reports for the year 1975, page 1411.Summary of factsLJ Lawton stated: “The death of the defendant had not been brought about by any decision made by the deceased but by the stab wound”Distinguished - injuries due to the victim’s weakness - fainting easily.Victim knew - fainted easily - not have challenged A - no challenge - no fainted. No offence, no intention/decision to assault - not see that risk fainting. Only verbal exchange caused Mr Walker to faint.

Third Submission:My lord if you were to dismiss this appeal it would open up a range of situations in which people could be convicted of assault and ABH If conversations caused faint, due weakness or otherwiseGo against liberal society could infringe right of freedom of expression under HRA 1988. If law modified setting the precedent in this case enable people to feel safer if argue with someone mean not charged with assault or ABH if person faints as a result of the exchange.

End:For these reasons, my LORD/LADY and those by my lower counsel I submit that this appeal should be Perhaps there are some issues on which I may be of further assistance?I am obliged, My Lord.