Criminal | Offences Against The Person
Non-Fatal Offences: Battery Liability
Revision Note | A Level
Download
bitsoflaw.orgbits of law
Introduction
- battery consists of an act where D intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful physical force to another person
- difference between assault and battery, is that assault is committed when V believes he is likely to be subjected harm, battery does not take place until force is applied
Actus reus
- actus reus satisfied when physical force is applied
- law takes view that a person has the right to be protected from molestation
- jurist William Blackstone , wrote in 1760s:
.. the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence and therefore prohibits the first and lowest stage of it - every man's person being sacred and no other having a right to meddle with it in the slightest manner...
Physical force
- low threshold for physical force required for battery
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
- D, a police officer, had taken hold of V’s arm in order to detain, but had no intention to arrest, sufficient for battery
- Lord Goff:
.. the fundamental principle, plain and incontestable is that every person’s body is inviolate. It has long been established that any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to a battery...
- touching clothes may be sufficient
Thomas (1985)
- D, a caretaker, was charged with indecent assault after taking hold of a 12 yr old girl’s skirt, no evidence of act being indecent
- court said if D touches V’s clothing, while V is wearing them is equivalent to touching V
Consent
- consent can make touching lawful
- implied consent in everyday activities
Collins v Wilcock (1984)
- Lord Goff:
..consent is a defence to battery; and most of the physical contacts of ordinary life are not actionable because they are impliedly consented to by all who move in society...
- Lord Goff:
Continuing acts
- continuing acts may create liability
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (MPC) (1969)
- D accidently stopped his car on a V’s foot, a policeman
- V asked D to remove the car, D replied
Fuck off, you can wait!
- D found guilty of causing injury to V as leaving the car on the foot was seen as a continuing act
.. it matters not in our judgment, whether the battery is inflicted directly by the body of the offender or through the medium of some weapon or instrument controlled by the action of the offender...
Indirect acts
- indirect acts may be sufficient
Martin (1881)
- D placed iron bar across exit door in a theatre, turned off the lights and shouted fire, Vs were injured in subsequent chaos
- D’s conduct found to amount to battery
Haystead (2000)
- D punched his girlfriend, causing her to drop her baby onto the floor
- D guilty of battery on the baby
Omissions
- unlike assault, in limited circumstances battery may be committed through an omission
- for example, where D has created a dangerous situation and failed to act
Santana Bermudez (2004)
- D injured V, police officer, by allowing her to search him, knowing he had hypodermic needles in his pockets
- court found D’s failure to warn about the danger was sufficient actus reus for battery
Mens rea
- satisfied if there is
intention
to apply physical force orrecklessness
that force will be appliedVenna (1976)
- D arrested for a public order offence, D struggled violently with V, police officer, causing him injury
- D found to be reckless as to whether he caused harm to V
.. We see no reason in logic or in law why a person who recklessly applies physical force to the person of another should be outside the law of criminal assault...
- necessary mens rea may be transferred to unintended Vs
Latimer (1886)
- D aimed to a attack a men with a belt in a pub, belt bounced off the man and struck
- D guilty of battery although he had not meant to hit V