R v St George [1840] 9 C&P 483
Threat as assault – probability or possibility of the threat – reasonable fear
Facts
The Defendant (St. George) got into an argument with the victim, a Mr Durant. During the course of this argument, the Defendant took out a gun and pointed it at Mr Durant. The gun was, in fact, not loaded. He was in any event prevented from taking further action by a third party. The Defendant was prosecuted for assault.
Issues
The issue in this case centred on the possibility of a threat being carried out. Assault is commonly found where the victim was placed in fear of being harmed, however the question in the present case was whether even if a victim was so afraid, assault could be found to exist where the threat was impossible to perform (as was the case here, since the gun was unloaded). One aspect of the issue before the court was therefore whether the victim’s fear had to have been reasonable.
Decision/Outcome
It was held by the court that in the circumstances the Defendant was guilty of an assault. Threatening someone with a gun, regardless of whether the gun was loaded, would amount to a threat as long as the victim thought that the gun was in fact loaded. On the other hand, where the victim was aware that the gun was not loaded, but was still afraid, that fear would be unreasonable and therefore there would be no assault in those circumstances. The test applied is subjective, but there must be at least a subjective possibility that the threat against the victim can be carried out.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately describes the facts, issue, and outcome in R v St George (1840) 9 C&P 483, a foundational common law case on the mental element of assault. The principle it establishes — that a threat can constitute an assault where the victim reasonably believes it can be carried out, even if in fact it cannot — remains good law and is still cited in discussions of criminal assault in England and Wales. It should be noted, however, that the law of non-fatal offences against the person has been substantially developed since 1840. In particular, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and, for common assault, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (s.39) now provide the primary statutory framework within which these principles operate. The modern leading case on assault is R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1998] AC 147, in which the House of Lords confirmed that assault requires the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force. Readers should be aware that academic and Law Commission commentary has long highlighted tensions and ambiguities in this area, and Law Commission reform proposals (most recently its 2015 report and the earlier 1993 report) have not yet been enacted. The article is useful as a statement of the historical common law position but should be read alongside the modern statutory and case law framework.
