ABSTRACT
The definition of the ‘actus reus of assault’ seems to be accepted to be as set out in Archbold,2 that is ‘an act – and not a mere omission to act – by which a person ... causes another to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence’. There is no requirement that the response of the V is reasonable, but the general discussion of causation in Chapter 2 may be relevant here.3 In practice, the liability of the D where the V’s response is arguably unreasonable will be dealt with by the mens rea requirements of the offence, discussed below.
