R v Constanza
Written words, such as letters, can amount to an assault if they cause the victim to fear violence at some time not excluding the immediate future.
Facts
Mr Constanza stalked a woman, a former colleague, for nearly two years. He followed her home, made silent telephone calls, wrote over 800 letters to her, and wrote offensive words on her front door. He then sent her two further letters, which she interpreted as clear threats. She was diagnosed with clinical depression and anxiety caused by his conduct. He was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. Schiemann LJ said that the prosecution must prove a fear of violence at some time not excluding the immediate future, and that it was enough that the victim feared that the defendant might use violence at any moment. Written words, such as the letters, could amount to an assault, and the letters, read in the light of the defendant's previous conduct, had caused such fear. The case was decided shortly before the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 introduced specific offences of harassment.
Related cases on non-fatal offences against the person
- Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (Michael) [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 1571
- JCC (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331
- Logdon v Director of Public Prosecutions [1976] Crim LR 121
- R v BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560
- R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846, [2004] 2 Cr App R 6
- R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212
- R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
