## Facts

- The defendant displayed what appeared to be a functional firearm to the victim, pointing it at them allegedly as a practical joke.
- The victim experienced fear and distress, apprehending immediate violence.
- The defendant subsequently revealed that the gun was a replica and not real.
- The defendant was convicted of assault by the lower court.
- On appeal, the defendant argued that there was no intent to physically harm the victim, challenging the conviction on the basis of lacking the necessary mens rea for assault.

## Issues

1. Whether the offense of assault requires an intention to carry out threatened violence, or whether it is sufficient for the defendant to intend or be reckless as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.
2. Whether the victim’s reasonable apprehension of imminent violence, regardless of the defendant’s intent to use force, fulfills the legal requirements for assault.

## Decision

- The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction for assault.
- The court confirmed that it is not necessary to show an intent to execute the threat; it is sufficient that the defendant intentionally or recklessly caused the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.

## Legal Principles

- Assault is committed where the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force.
- It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to carry out the threat of violence, only that they intended or were reckless as to causing apprehension of such violence.
- The victim’s apprehension of unlawful force must be reasonable under the circumstances.
- The court distinguished this principle from situations where words or context negate the apprehension of violence, such as in Tuberville v Savage, where words made clear that violence would not be used.

## Conclusion

The court in Logdon v DPP clarified that for common assault, the mens rea is satisfied by the defendant’s intention or recklessness in causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force; there is no requirement that the defendant intended to actually inflict harm, solidifying the focus on the victim’s reasonable apprehension rather than the defendant’s ultimate intentions.


Logdon v DPP [1976] Crim LR 121