 Although assault involves a threat of an immediate battery , the perpetrator need not actually intend to carry out that battery . It is enough that he , intentionally or recklessly , caused the victim to apprehend such an occurrence . The term " immediate " has also been used in different ways . Following Ireland , it seems likely that even where the victim knew the defendant was some distance away , this may be sufficient . As Lord Steyn said there , " what , if not the possibility of imminent personal violence , was the victim terrified about ? " . This would widen the crime of assault considerably . It is perfectly conceivable that the victim was fearful , but did not believe an attack was imminent . That she actually apprehended " immediate violence " , rather than merely " immediately apprehended " , is doubtful . In Constanza , it was sufficient for the prosecution to show that the victim feared an attack in the future , which may have been imminent . It also suggested that the anticipated harm could be psychological rather than physical . 
