Assault by Beating?

[miked]

A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel
Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to
assault by beating.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

I was wondering why 'assault by beating'? Why not just common assault?
In what way did she give Farage a beating?

mike

[Roger Hayter]

Post by miked
A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel
Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to
assault by beating.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo
I was wondering why 'assault by beating'? Why not just common assault?
In what way did she give Farage a beating?
mike

Common assault does not necessarily involve any direct or indirect touching at
all, just apprehension of violence. To actually throw something at someone and
hit is a greater offence.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by miked
A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel
Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to
assault by beating.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo
I was wondering why 'assault by beating'? Why not just common assault?
In what way did she give Farage a beating?
mike

Common assault does not necessarily involve any direct or indirect
touching at all, just apprehension of violence. To actually throw
something at someone and hit is a greater offence.

Yes, but that greater offence is "battery". The CPS however says
that battery should be charged not as battery but instead "assault
by beating", and that this is because of DPP v Taylor and Little
[1992] Q.B. 645.

I can't find a transcript of that case, but it seems to have been a
Divisional Court case which held that assault and battery are statutory
offences, even though they aren't. I'm not sure why a court came to
an obviously false conclusion, and I'm not sure what difference it
makes. But it seems like it might have something to do with the
"battery" / "assault by beating" confusion.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roger Hayter

[quoted text muted]

Common assault does not necessarily involve any direct or indirect
touching at all, just apprehension of violence. To

If an object is thrown and the target doesn't/can't see it before it
lands, they cannot have apprehended violence. Which AIUI is the key fact
in assault ?

However, being hit by someone or something in a violent manner clearly is
a physical beating.

I can sort of see the distinction. However it does sound odd. Maybe
that's because the beating was so minimal, it did not lead to other
charges which are more common - ABH, GBH, wounding with intent (is that a
thing ?), attempted murder etc

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter
Common assault does not necessarily involve any direct or indirect
touching at all, just apprehension of violence. To

If an object is thrown and the target doesn't/can't see it before it
lands, they cannot have apprehended violence. Which AIUI is the key fact
in assault ?

The assault/battery distinction is perfectly sensible and easily
understood (fear of violence/actual violence). It's the bit where
they call a battery 'assault by beating' that can be confusing.

Post by Jethro_uk
However, being hit by someone or something in a violent manner clearly
is a physical beating.

Except it isn't. "beat" means "to strike with repeated blows",
and "strike" means "to hit with some force either with the hand
or with a weapon". Throwing a milkshake on someone is simply not
"a beating" in the normal English sense of the word, but it seems
that it is in Legalese.

[miked]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter
Common assault does not necessarily involve any direct or indirect
touching at all, just apprehension of violence. To

If an object is thrown and the target doesn't/can't see it before it
lands, they cannot have apprehended violence. Which AIUI is the key fact
in assault ?

The assault/battery distinction is perfectly sensible and easily
understood (fear of violence/actual violence). It's the bit where
they call a battery 'assault by beating' that can be confusing.

Post by Jethro_uk
However, being hit by someone or something in a violent manner clearly
is a physical beating.

Except it isn't. "beat" means "to strike with repeated blows",
and "strike" means "to hit with some force either with the hand
or with a weapon". Throwing a milkshake on someone is simply not
"a beating" in the normal English sense of the word, but it seems
that it is in Legalese.

This is what i thought too, but AIUI, it was not the milkshake hitting
him that justified the charge, but becos the card cup also hit Farage.
The lady who initially had intended to plea not guilty, said she didnt
mean the cup to hit him. I wonder if the same charge would have been
brought if a woman had done the same at some nonentity. Is it just becos
a celebrity politician was involved and its the fallout from the lady MP
who was murdered in the street. Apparently it cost £17.50 to clean his
suit, which seems incredibly cheap to me.

mike

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter

[quoted text muted]

Common assault does not necessarily involve any direct or indirect
touching at all, just apprehension of violence. To

If an object is thrown and the target doesn't/can't see it before it
lands, they cannot have apprehended violence.

Past tense versus present and future tenses. Once hit (or even being a
near miss), one may be hit again, and perhaps worse than before.

Post by Jethro_uk
Which AIUI is the key fact in assault ?
However, being hit by someone or something in a violent manner clearly is
a physical beating.
I can sort of see the distinction. However it does sound odd. Maybe
that's because the beating was so minimal, it did not lead to other
charges which are more common - ABH, GBH, wounding with intent (is that a
thing ?), attempted murder etc

Yes, wounding with intent is wounding with intent to cause grievous
bodily harm. Wounding with intent to cause death is, as you mention,
attempted murder.

[Colin Bignell]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter

[quoted text muted]

Common assault does not necessarily involve any direct or indirect
touching at all, just apprehension of violence. To

If an object is thrown and the target doesn't/can't see it before it
lands, they cannot have apprehended violence. Which AIUI is the key fact
in assault ?
However, being hit by someone or something in a violent manner clearly is
a physical beating.
I can sort of see the distinction. However it does sound odd. Maybe
that's because the beating was so minimal, it did not lead to other
charges which are more common - ABH, GBH, wounding with intent (is that a
thing ?), attempted murder etc

Beating is the application of unlawful force, falling short of ABH, even
when the force is minimal. The degree of force applied is a matter to be
taken into account at the sentencing stage.