Legal Case Summary
Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police [1983] Crim LR 323
The requisite intent for trespass with the unlawful purpose of assault by causing fear of immediate violence.
Facts
The defendant entered the grounds of a private enclosed garden at 11 pm. He stood and looked through the window of Miss M’s bedroom. Miss M saw the defendant staring at her through the window while she was in her night closes, causing her to jump and scream in fright. She proceeded to call the police whilst in her frightened state.
Issues
The question of law arose as to whether the defendant could be found guilty of being on private property for “an unlawful purpose” under s4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. Unless the defendant entered the property with an unlawful purpose, there would not be a criminal conviction but a mere tort. In this case, the unlawful purpose was claimed to be that of assault by causing Miss M to apprehend a fear of immediate violence.
Decision/Outcome
In the present case, the defendant had a clear intention to cause fear, and that intended effect materialised as his actions frightened Miss M, causing her to scream and be terrified of the defendant’s potential actions. It is sufficient to identify the intention of the victim to cause a state of fear and created a situation where the basis of fear instilled in the victim was as to what the defendant would do next. It is not requisite to identify the exact nature of the victim’s fear or whether it was possible for the defendant to carry out the threat of immediate violence. As the defendant entered the private property with the intention of frightening Miss M, and Miss M was indeed frightened, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police [1983] Crim LR 323 and the legal principles it established regarding assault (in the sense of causing apprehension of immediate unlawful force) and the unlawful purpose element under the Vagrancy Act 1824.
However, readers should be aware of two significant developments. First, the Vagrancy Act 1824 has been repealed in England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (as amended by subsequent provisions) — more precisely, it was repealed by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, with the repeal brought into force by the Vagrancy Act 1824 (Repeal) (Commencement) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/833), taking effect on 3 September 2024. The specific offence under s.4 of that Act on which the conviction rested therefore no longer exists. Second, the broader principles concerning assault — particularly that it is sufficient for the defendant to have intended to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force, and that the exact nature or immediacy of any threatened act need not be precisely identified — remain good law and are consistent with subsequent authorities including R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1998] AC 147 (HL). The case retains value as an illustration of those assault principles, but students should note that its specific statutory context under the Vagrancy Act 1824 is now obsolete.
