# Aggravated assault vs assault - what is the difference ?



## olddog (5 May 2010)

I'm not asking for myself you will understand ( I couldnt bite the pants off a postman if my life depended on it ) but for a 'friend'

Olddog


----------



## j26 (5 May 2010)

There's no such thing as aggravated assault.

There's assault, assault causing harm and causing serious harm - Sections 2,3 and 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997.


----------



## mathepac (5 May 2010)

So what does the judge mean is this case? - [broken link removed]


----------



## ajapale (5 May 2010)

> Egan, of Curraghvarna, Banagher, pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit  Criminal Court to *assault causing harm* at Flannery's Pub, Lower Camden  Street in the south city centre on October 31, 2004.


The defendant pleaded guilty to "assault causing harm". The words "aggravated assult" were the judges when she was passing judgement.


> "This was an aggravated assault fuelled by alcohol and a crime of  violence and a prolonged attack," she said. "The injured party’s life  has been changed since the attack. I will take note of Egan's good  character, his early guilty plea and the fact he has no previous  convictions."


----------



## mathepac (5 May 2010)

OK, so when she used the words "aggravated assault" that was just English, not legalese. Thanks.


----------



## j26 (5 May 2010)

mathepac said:


> OK, so when she used the words "aggravated assault" that was just English, not legalese. Thanks.



They occasionally break into plain English


----------



## DrMoriarty (5 May 2010)

From wikipedia (so it _must_ be true!)


> *Aggravated assault*
> 
> 
> Aggravated assault is, in some jurisdictions, a stronger form of assault, usually using a deadly weapon. A person has committed an aggravated assault when that person:
> ...


----------



## olddog (5 May 2010)

j26 said:


> They occasionally break into plain English



  

What next ? Beaks with mobile phones ?

Thank you all for great replies and supplementary questions. Can I ask some more ? :

What about : when is assault a civil matter and when is it a criminal matter ?

Does a criminal assault charge ( Gardai & DPP put the case together? ) require a higher level of proof ( how do you prove to a 'higher level'?)  than a civil assault charge ( put together by a private individual and his legal advisers ?)  ? 

If so, if someone is found guilty of criminal assault can a civil action be taken against them for the same event  in the expectation that it will not be contested ?

After my original post a came across a reference to 'Common Assault' and then another type of assault which seemed to describe an assault which resulted in an injury (is it necessary that someone is injured for then to have been assaulted?)  which lasted for more than a week but less than a year. If that is the case what would it be called ?

If someone is assaulted with a 'thing' ( rather than by hands, feet, head etc ) does this make the assault a different sort or class of assault ?

Back in the days when men were men and the King was on the throne I recall people being charged with Assault and Battery. 

Is it still possible to be charged with A & B ? 

If so, what is Battery and how does it differ from Assault


Olddog


----------



## j26 (5 May 2010)

There's a whole law course dealing with the questions you've raised, but here's some short answers that might help you




olddog said:


> What about : when is assault a civil matter and when is it a criminal matter ?


Every assault is a civil matter, but only actions that contravene Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the NFOAP, 1997 are criminal matters



olddog said:


> Does a criminal assault charge ( Gardai & DPP put the case together? ) require a higher level of proof ( how do you prove to a 'higher level'?)  than a civil assault charge ( put together by a private individual and his legal advisers ?)  ?


The burden of proof for criminal matters is "beyond reasonable doubt", whereas it's "the balance of probabilities" for civil matters.  The upshot of it is that the gardai have to prove every element of the offence

For assault that means that the following have to be proved
No lawful excuse - e.g. self defence
It was intentional or reckless
There was an application of force or impact (self evident) OR
The victim was caused to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact
And that the accused did all this

If no evidence is given that, for example, that the person who committed the assault is the person standing before the court, the judge cannot convict the person.  Many trials fail on silly prosecution errors like this




olddog said:


> If so, if someone is found guilty of criminal assault can a civil action be taken against them for the same event  in the expectation that it will not be contested ?


Most likely - it's pretty slam dunk as it has already been proved (to a higher standard of proof) that the assault took place, but how do you collect your judgment against the assailant?



olddog said:


> After my original post a came across a reference to 'Common Assault' and then another type of assault which seemed to describe an assault which resulted in an injury (is it necessary that someone is injured for then to have been assaulted?)  which lasted for more than a week but less than a year. If that is the case what would it be called ?


Irish law only recognises Section 2,3 & 4 of the NFOAP, 1997 as constituting assault.  The distinguishments you refer to are probably Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) and Grevious Bodily Harm (GBH)  The rough equivalents of them now are Assault Causing Harm, and Causing Serious Harm (note assault is not necessary for Causing Serious Harm - it's to cover sado-masochistic activities getting too far out of hand!!)

If someone is assaulted with a 'thing' ( rather than by hands, feet, head etc ) does this make the assault a different sort or class of assault ?[/QUOTE]
No, it's an aggravating factor (it "should" be factored into the sentence, but doesn't constitute a separate offence, unless it's a firearm, or syringe).  



olddog said:


> Back in the days when men were men and the King was on the throne I recall people being charged with Assault and Battery.
> 
> Is it still possible to be charged with A & B ?
> 
> If so, what is Battery and how does it differ from Assault


No A & B was abolished by the NFOAP, 1997, but remains as a tort (civil) matter

Battery is the physically making contact with person.  Assault is the placing someone in fear of an immediate (or imminent) battery.  For example if I suddenly jump up, and raise my fist in the air as if to hit you, and you genuinely believe that I am about to hit you, that is assault, whether or not I actually hit you.  It is only if I hit you that it becomes battery.


----------



## olddog (6 May 2010)

J26,

Thank you very much for providing such a long and detailed reply. Its all a good deal clearer to me now

Olddog


----------



## csirl (6 May 2010)

Criminal prosecutions are taken by the DPP/Gardai. If the offender is found guilty, they receive a criminal record and punishment - fine, custodial sentance etc.

If you are a victim of an assault, you can take a civil action against the offender in order to get compensation e.g. medical expenses, pain and suffering etc. The civil action for compensation is taken by the victim and is independent of any criminal proceedings. However, if someone has already been prosecuted for the offence, then no further proof is required, so getting a judgement should be relatively easy.


----------



## DrMoriarty (6 May 2010)

olddog, I presume you're familiar with the case of the two peanuts who walk into a bar?


----------



## olddog (6 May 2010)

DrMoriarty said:


> olddog, I presume you're familiar with the case of the two peanuts who walk into a bar?



Posting Guidelines :

14 Please don't address specific queries directly to individual moderators or other contributors 

Cant be long 'till Brendan bans you


----------

