What is the ratio in DPP v K?

Assault can be committed by indirect means without the defendant being present when the harm occurs, provided the necessary mens rea exists when setting up the dangerous situation.

What did the court decide in DPP v K?

The court upheld the conviction, ruling that placing acid in a hand dryer constituted assault occasioning actual bodily harm even though the application of force was indirect.

Why is DPP v K important for assault law?

It modernised assault law by confirming liability for indirect harm, essential for dealing with contemporary methods of causing injury through devices or delayed mechanisms.

What is the ratio in DPP v K?

Assault can be committed by indirect means without the defendant being present when the harm occurs, provided the necessary mens rea exists when setting up the dangerous situation.

What did the court decide in DPP v K?

The court upheld the conviction, ruling that placing acid in a hand dryer constituted assault occasioning actual bodily harm even though the application of force was indirect.

Why is DPP v K important for assault law?

It modernised assault law by confirming liability for indirect harm, essential for dealing with contemporary methods of causing injury through devices or delayed mechanisms.

Criminal1 min read

DPP v K

[1990] 1 WLR 1067Queen's Bench Division1990

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“Assault can be committed indirectly through setting up dangerous situations for victims.”

Facts

A 15-year-old schoolboy took sulphuric acid from a science lesson to wash his hands. Hearing footsteps, he panicked and put the acid in a hot air hand dryer, intending to return later. Another pupil used the dryer and was injured by the acid.

Issues

Whether assault occasioning actual bodily harm could be committed indirectly, without the defendant being present when the victim was injured, and without immediate application of force.

Held

The Divisional Court held that assault could be committed indirectly. The conviction was upheld as the defendant had the necessary mens rea when he placed the acid in the dryer.

Significance

This case expanded the definition of assault to include indirect application of force, important for modern criminal law dealing with technological and indirect methods of harm. It's crucial for understanding the scope of assault in contemporary contexts.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of DPP v K. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

DPP v K [1990] 1 WLR 1067

Criminal LawAssaultIndirect ForceActual Bodily HarmMens Rea

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.