Last reviewed: September 2026
Common assault and battery
Common assault and battery are distinct concepts, although they are commonly charged under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Common assault concerns intentionally or recklessly causing another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. Battery concerns the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force. A case can therefore involve an allegation of assault without physical injury, or an allegation that physical force was actually used.
The factual dispute may concern whether any threat or force occurred, whether the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, whether contact was accidental, whether the complainant was the aggressor, or whether the defendant acted lawfully in self-defence.
Actual bodily harm: section 47
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is prosecuted under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The prosecution must prove an assault or battery which caused actual bodily harm. The legal threshold is more than merely transient or trifling injury. The medical description of an injury is important but is not the whole case: the prosecution must also prove the underlying assault and causation.
Evidence can include medical records, photographs, body-worn video, witness accounts and contemporaneous messages. Defence preparation should compare the alleged mechanism of injury with the objective evidence and with any alternative explanation for how or when the injury occurred.
GBH and wounding: sections 20 and 18
Sections 20 and 18 of the 1861 Act address wounding and grievous bodily harm at different levels of culpability. Section 18 is the more serious offence and requires proof of the relevant intent. Section 20 has a different mental element. In practice, the distinction can turn on both the severity of the injury and the evidence from which intention is said to be proved.
The prosecution may rely on the weapon used, the nature and duration of the attack, prior threats, planning, repeated blows, targeting of a vulnerable area, admissions or other surrounding facts. The defence should test whether those facts are established and whether the inference of intent is justified.
The injury does not prove the whole offence
A serious injury can understandably dominate a case, but criminal liability requires more than showing the injury exists. The court must consider who caused it, how it was caused, whether the force was unlawful and what the defendant’s state of mind was. A fall, intervention by another person, an earlier injury or an unclear sequence can affect causation.
Medical evidence may describe injury but may not establish exactly how the incident occurred. Where mechanism or timing is disputed, the records and expert evidence should be read alongside CCTV, photographs, witness accounts and the chronology.
Self-defence
A person may use reasonable force in self-defence, defence of another or prevention of crime. The analysis is fact-sensitive. The court considers the circumstances as the defendant honestly believed them to be and whether the force used was reasonable in those circumstances. The defence therefore needs to identify the perceived threat, timing, available alternatives, nature of the response and what happened immediately before and after the use of force.
CCTV can be particularly valuable because a written statement may compress a fast incident into a few sentences. Footage may show distance, movement, escalation, retreat, intervention by others and whether the complainant’s account matches the physical sequence.
CCTV, body-worn video and phone footage
Violence cases often generate more visual evidence than first appears. Police body-worn video may record the scene, injuries, demeanour and early accounts. Private CCTV may cover entrances, streets, licensed premises or public transport. Bystanders may have phone recordings. Doorbell cameras can capture movement before or after an alleged incident.
This material can be time-sensitive. Businesses may overwrite CCTV quickly. If footage may assist, it should be identified and preservation requested as early as possible. The defence should not assume that because police have attended a location every relevant camera has been secured.
First accounts and inconsistency
What witnesses said immediately after an incident can be important. A later formal witness statement may differ from a 999 call, body-worn video account, message to a friend or earlier police note. Not every difference is significant. The defence should distinguish natural variations in recollection from contradictions that affect a central issue.
The defendant’s first account also matters. Comments made at the scene, in custody or in interview may be compared with the later defence. That is one reason police-station advice should be treated as an important stage of the case rather than as a preliminary formality.
Identification
Some violent offences depend on identification rather than a dispute about what happened. The issue may be whether the defendant was the person involved at all. Lighting, duration, distance, obstruction, intoxication, prior familiarity and the identification procedure can all matter. CCTV or phone-location evidence may support or undermine identification.
Multiple participants and joint allegations
Group incidents can generate broad allegations against several people. The defence should isolate each defendant’s alleged conduct. Presence at the scene is not automatically the same as participation in every act committed by another person. Where the prosecution alleges assistance, encouragement or a shared plan, the evidence of that defendant’s role and knowledge must be examined separately.
Weapons
An allegation involving a weapon can affect charging, evidence and sentence. The defence should establish whether an object was recovered, whether it can be linked to the defendant, whether forensic evidence exists, and whether witness descriptions are consistent. Where an everyday object is said to have been used as a weapon, the way it was allegedly used and the evidence of intent can be central.
Domestic-context allegations
Assault allegations between current or former partners can involve parallel issues such as stalking, harassment, coercive control, child arrangements, bail conditions or restraining orders. The criminal allegation still has to be proved according to its legal elements. Relationship history can provide context, but the defence should remain focused on admissible evidence rather than broad accusations about character.
Police interview
Interview strategy depends on the disclosed allegation and the evidence available. If self-defence is relied upon, the factual basis may need careful explanation. If identification is disputed, that presents different considerations. If CCTV has not yet been obtained, the solicitor should consider what can safely be addressed before the objective evidence is known.
There is no automatic rule that a full-comment interview is always right or always wrong. The decision must be made on the facts, disclosure, client’s account and potential evidential consequences.
Pre-charge representations
Early representations may be appropriate where there is material that materially alters the evidential picture: CCTV, independent witnesses, medical evidence, photographs, digital messages, location records, evidence of injury to the suspect, or a legal point concerning self-defence or charge selection.
A good representation should address the actual evidential issue. It should not simply assert that the complainant is lying. Where the prosecution theory depends on one account, objective evidence contradicting a material feature can be far more useful.
Charge selection
The CPS charging approach to violence distinguishes between common assault/battery, ABH, section 20 and section 18 according to injury and culpability, while taking the circumstances as a whole into account. Charge selection can therefore be a genuine legal issue where the prosecution allegation overstates either the injury or the required state of mind.
The defence should examine the medical evidence and the prosecution’s reasoning rather than assume the charge is fixed simply because it appears on a charge sheet.
Court route and trial
Less serious allegations may remain in the Magistrates’ Court. More serious offences are dealt with in the Crown Court. Trial preparation will depend on the issues: self-defence, identification, causation, intent, witness credibility, expert evidence or a combination. A clear incident chronology and evidential map often help expose which points actually decide the case.
Sentencing
If there is a guilty plea or conviction, sentence will reflect the offence, harm, culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors and the defendant’s circumstances. The factual basis on which sentence proceeds matters. Disputes about role, weapon use, intention, planning or injury should not be left unresolved if they materially affect sentence.
Legal Aid and private representation
Theodorous holds a Legal Aid Agency criminal contract and can advise on public funding where available. We also undertake privately funded assault and serious-violence work, including investigation-stage representation, pre-charge submissions, witness evidence and Crown Court preparation.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between ABH and GBH?
The legal distinction concerns the seriousness of the harm and, for particular GBH offences, the required state of mind. The charge must be assessed against both the injury and the circumstances.
If I struck first, can I still rely on self-defence?
Who made the first physical contact is relevant but not necessarily decisive in every situation. The complete circumstances and perceived threat must be analysed.
What if there is no CCTV?
Many cases are decided without CCTV. Witness evidence, medical material, messages, 999 calls, body-worn video and other circumstantial evidence may still be important.
Can an assault case be resolved before charge?
It can be, depending on the evidence and charging decision. Where defence material materially affects the evidential picture, pre-charge representations may be appropriate.