1
00:00:00,720 --> 00:00:03,400
Hi, you're listening to the 
Australian Law Student Law Info 

2
00:00:03,400 --> 00:00:05,280
podcast. 
Your go to source for legal 

3
00:00:05,280 --> 00:00:08,720
insights in 4 minutes or less. 
I'm Nick Hodgkinson and today 

4
00:00:08,920 --> 00:00:11,800
we're talking about our second 
intentional tort assault. 

5
00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:14,200
But first, our obligatory 
disclaimer. 

6
00:00:14,360 --> 00:00:16,360
The law info is produced by law 
students. 

7
00:00:16,360 --> 00:00:19,880
For law students it is not, nor 
is it intended to constitute 

8
00:00:20,120 --> 00:00:22,800
legal advice. 
If you require legal assistance,

9
00:00:22,800 --> 00:00:25,520
you should contact your local 
Law Society who can direct you 

10
00:00:25,520 --> 00:00:27,800
appropriately. 
For more information on the 

11
00:00:27,800 --> 00:00:30,280
Australian law student, visit 
our website at the 

12
00:00:30,280 --> 00:00:35,160
ozlawstudent.com OK Assault. 
It's our second intentional 

13
00:00:35,160 --> 00:00:37,320
tour. 
It's not just about physical 

14
00:00:37,320 --> 00:00:39,960
harm, it involves perception and
intent. 

15
00:00:40,480 --> 00:00:44,080
Legally assault can be said to 
occur when someone intentionally

16
00:00:44,080 --> 00:00:46,640
needs another person to believe 
that they're on the brink of 

17
00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:50,160
immediate harm and you should 
refer here to Brady and Shatzle.

18
00:00:51,000 --> 00:00:54,560
A quick note, the actual battery
doesn't need to occur in order 

19
00:00:54,560 --> 00:00:56,760
to bring a legal action for 
assault. 

20
00:00:57,200 --> 00:00:59,000
Think of it as a pre emptive 
strike. 

21
00:00:59,320 --> 00:01:03,160
Acts and words can be sufficient
for assault, but this can affect

22
00:01:03,160 --> 00:01:05,800
the quantum your client might 
receive when a court orders 

23
00:01:05,800 --> 00:01:08,360
damages. 
Damages are something that we 

24
00:01:08,360 --> 00:01:09,800
will discuss later in the 
series. 

25
00:01:10,640 --> 00:01:13,560
So what sets assault apart from 
the other intentional torts? 

26
00:01:13,800 --> 00:01:16,520
Well, assault boils down to the 
plaintiff having had a 

27
00:01:16,520 --> 00:01:18,960
reasonable apprehension of 
imminent contact. 

28
00:01:19,840 --> 00:01:23,280
Reasonableness will be assessed 
as whether the defendant has had

29
00:01:23,280 --> 00:01:25,160
a clear ability to carry out the
battery. 

30
00:01:25,600 --> 00:01:27,600
Assault is not about empty 
threats. 

31
00:01:28,320 --> 00:01:31,200
Consider this scenario. 
Aiming an apparently loaded 

32
00:01:31,200 --> 00:01:34,760
rifle constituted assault even 
when the rifle turned out to be 

33
00:01:34,760 --> 00:01:37,280
empty. 
Note the crux here is how a 

34
00:01:37,280 --> 00:01:39,960
reasonable person would 
interpret the situation giving 

35
00:01:39,960 --> 00:01:42,240
more weight to perception than 
the actual threat. 

36
00:01:43,000 --> 00:01:45,720
As with battery, we still need 
to establish positiveness, 

37
00:01:45,720 --> 00:01:48,240
directness, and intention, and 
you can refer to the first 

38
00:01:48,240 --> 00:01:51,760
episode for more on that. 
With intention, per Hall and 

39
00:01:51,760 --> 00:01:54,440
Fonseca, we look at the 
defendant's intention to use 

40
00:01:54,440 --> 00:01:57,160
force or to create that 
apprehension in the plaintiff. 

41
00:01:58,480 --> 00:02:00,680
Let's run over some 
hypotheticals that help test our

42
00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:03,720
knowledge of assault. 
How immediate must a threat be 

43
00:02:03,720 --> 00:02:05,840
for a plaintiff's apprehension 
to be reasonable? 

44
00:02:06,280 --> 00:02:09,479
If the defendant threatens to go
home, fetch a gun, and return 

45
00:02:09,479 --> 00:02:11,440
for a showdown, is that 
sufficient? 

46
00:02:12,000 --> 00:02:14,000
What if the defendant wasn't 
armed initially? 

47
00:02:14,760 --> 00:02:17,160
What if the defendant's gun is a
water pistol, which they 

48
00:02:17,160 --> 00:02:19,880
represent is a functioning and 
loaded gun to the plaintiff? 

49
00:02:20,600 --> 00:02:23,120
You should think about how 
different degrees of immediacy 

50
00:02:23,120 --> 00:02:25,960
and reasonableness can alter the
strength of your argument. 

51
00:02:27,120 --> 00:02:29,800
And there we have at the second 
episode of the Australian Law, 

52
00:02:29,800 --> 00:02:33,160
Students, Law in Four podcast, a
swift exploration of the 

53
00:02:33,160 --> 00:02:35,360
fascinating world of intentional
torts. 

54
00:02:35,880 --> 00:02:38,400
Join us next time on the 
Australian Law Student Law in 

55
00:02:38,400 --> 00:02:41,400
Four podcast where we discuss 
false imprisonment. 

56
00:02:41,760 --> 00:02:45,360
As always, if you have any 
suggestions, please e-mail us at

57
00:02:45,360 --> 00:02:49,760
team at the Oslo student.com or 
leave a comment in your review 

58
00:02:49,760 --> 00:02:51,760
on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.