Legal Case Summary
R v Constanza [1997] Crim LR 576
Facts
A man was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a female ex-colleague. For a period of almost two years, the man followed the women home from work, made numerous silent phone calls, wrote her over 800 letters, drove past her house, visited her house without consent, and wrote offensive words on her house’s door three times. Following these actions, she received two additional letters with threatening language. She was soon diagnosed by a doctor as suffering from clinical depression and anxiety due to apprehended fear caused by the man’s actions and letters.
Issues
(1) Whether the man’s words alone, without any physical action against the victim, could constitute an assault and (2) whether there was an apprehended fear of immediate and unlawful violence in order to constitute an assault under Offences Against a Person Act 1861 s. 47.
Decision / Outcome
The Court stipulated that words alone can constitute an assault, without the presence of physical action, if they cause the victim to apprehend a fear of immediate violence. Concerning the temporal aspect of the fear of violence, the Court held that, for the purposes of proving an assault, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the victim feared violence “at some time not excluding the immediate future.” The Court held that this element was fulfilled, placing emphasis upon the close proximity of the man’s house to the victim’s and his delivery of the most recent letters to her house. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm caused solely by words.
Updated 20 March 2026
This summary of R v Constanza [1997] Crim LR 576 accurately reflects the Court of Appeal’s decision. The key legal principles remain good law: that words alone can constitute an assault, and that the immediacy requirement is satisfied if the victim fears violence at some time not excluding the immediate future. These principles were confirmed and reinforced by the House of Lords in R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1997] UKHL 34, decided later in the same year, which expressly approved the reasoning in Constanza and extended it to silent telephone calls. Students should be aware that Ireland/Burstow is now the leading authority on these points and is typically the primary case cited in this area. The article’s reference to s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 remains correct; that provision has not been amended in any way material to the principles discussed. No subsequent statutory change or case law has undermined the position set out in this summary.
