Logdon v DPP [1976] Crim LR 121
Facts
Logdon pointed a replica gun at a woman, who was frightened by what appeared to be a real threat. He later told her that the weapon was not genuine. Charged with assault, he argued that he had not intended to inflict physical injury. The case therefore concerned the distinction between causing another person to anticipate unlawful force and actually intending to carry out that force. The later disclosure that the gun was a replica did not alter the fact that the woman had already experienced the apparent threat.
Legal Issue
Can pointing a replica gun amount to assault where the victim anticipates immediate unlawful force, even though the defendant does not intend to shoot or otherwise carry out the threat?
Held
The Divisional Court rejected the challenge to the conviction. Assault concerns the apprehension of immediate unlawful force, and the required mental element can be satisfied by intending or being reckless as to causing that apprehension. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant also intended to inflict the threatened injury. The woman's understanding of the apparent weapon was therefore important. The fact that the gun could not fire did not prevent the conduct from amounting to assault while she believed the threat to be real. Telling her afterwards that it was a replica did not retrospectively remove the apprehension already caused.
⭐ Legal Principle
Assault can be committed by intentionally or recklessly causing another person to apprehend immediate unlawful force. An intention to carry out the threat is unnecessary, and an apparently real weapon can cause the required apprehension even if it is a replica.
Significance
The case helps separate assault from battery and from offences requiring actual injury. It also shows why the defendant's private intention to play a joke does not settle liability: the question is whether the relevant apprehension was intentionally or recklessly caused. In a problem question involving a weapon, identify what the victim understood at the relevant moment, whether the force appeared immediate, and the defendant's state of mind concerning that apprehension.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was the gun's inability to fire not decisive?
The assault consisted of causing apprehension of immediate unlawful force, not firing a working weapon. The woman believed the threat was real. A replica could therefore produce the required apprehension, provided the defendant intended that result or was reckless as to whether it would occur.
Must the defendant intend to injure the victim?
Not for this form of assault. The relevant intention or recklessness concerns causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force. An intention actually to carry out the threat is a different matter. Confusing those questions would wrongly exclude threats deliberately made with an apparently real weapon.
Would the analysis change if the victim knew throughout that the gun was harmless?
It could, because the prosecution would still need to establish the required apprehension of immediate unlawful force. Knowledge that the apparent threat could not occur may undermine that element. The facts must nevertheless be examined, including whether some other immediate unlawful force was being threatened.