and direct application of unlawful force; for which the defendant has no lawful justification or excuse.' But intent for purposes of civil assault can be either general or specific. Specific intent means that when the defendant acted, he or she intended to cause apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact. General intent means that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the action would put someone in apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact. While the law varies by jurisdiction, contact is often defined as harmful if it objectively intends to injure, disfigure, impair, or cause pain. The act is deemed offensive if it would offend a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity. While imminence is judged objectively and varies widely on the facts, it generally suggests there is little to no opportunity for intervening acts. Lastly, the state of apprehension should be differentiated from the general state of fear, as apprehension requires only that the person be aware of the imminence of the harmful or offensive act. It is clear that 'all forms of trespass require an intentional act. An act of negligence will not suffice.' There must be capacity and immediacy - simply threatening someone will not suffice. Whilst it has been speculated that words alone do not constitute assault, there must be an act (I.e. in R v Meade), this was questioned in R v Ireland it was held that repeated silent telephone calls being made can constitute an assault: 'The proposition that a gesture may amount to an assault, but that words can never suffice, is unrealistic and indefensible.''' - Lord Steyn Moreover, In Australia, the test for proving tortious assault is formulated as requiring 'proof of an intention to create in another person an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact' . Different types of assault Conditional assault This is whereby someone puts a condition on their assault. In the case of Read v Coker, where the claimant was threatened by a group of people who said: 'if you don't leave we will break your neck.' The court held the defendants were liable and this constituted an assault. Moreover, Jervis CJ stated: 'If anything short of actual striking will in law constitute an assault, the facts here clearly showed that D was guilty of an assault.' Words negating an assault to a certain extent Whilst it was held in Tuberville v Savage, where the defendant