Intentional Torts

Assault, Battery, Defences

Assault

An intentional act which threatens violence or produces in the claimant a reasonable expectation of immediate unlawful force.

Stephen’s v Myers (1830) 4 C & P 349

• Claimant was acting as a chairman in a parish meeting.

• Sat 6 people away from the defendant on a round table.#

• Defendant was aggressive and motion was passed that he be turned out of the meeting.

• After that the D threatened the C but was restrained by the person in between them.

• C action was assault the court held that assault had been committed.

• Restrainment was irrelevant.

• Apprehension of immediate and in lawful force is sufficient as assault

Tuberville v Savage (1669) I Mod 3

• Defendant blinded claimant by poking his sword in the claimants eye.

• Hand had been placed on the sword = could be assault but this was negated by the accompanying words which made it clear he would not inflict immediate and unlawful force on the claimant themselves.

• Would a gesture amount to assault?

• Claimants fear of violence must be reasonable.

  • Can be no claim for assault if the claimant is aware the threat of violence cannot be carried out.

Thomas v National Union of Miners (South Wales Area) [1986] Ch20

• Mine workers were bussed into work passing through an angry picket line.

• People in the picket line made violent threatening gestures to the people in the bus.

• It was held there was no assault on the basis the threats could not be carried out because the mine workers were protected by, one, protective shields placed on the bus and, two, the presence of police.

R v Ireland; R v Burstow (1998) AC 147

• Appellant made 3 large phone calls to women remained silent when they answered.

• Psychiatrist examined the women and said they suffered psychological damage.

• Second appellant directed harassing conduct towards women with whom he had previously had social relationships.

• For 8 months he made silent calls to her.

• Distributed offensive cards in the street where she lived.

• Sent her many notes.

• Appeared at home and place of work.

• Took photos of her.

• She suffered depression as a result.

• One of the questions for the HOLs was whether the making of a serious of silent phone calls could amount to assault?

  • They held: yes, silent caller may cause the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence as the nature of the act is uncertain of his or her actions.

Battery

A battery is the direct and intentional application of force to another person without consent.

(physical contact had taken place)

There can be battery without assault and assault without battery.

Blackstone

Unlawful beating

Act or omission?

Falange v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 493

The original force may be unintentional but a failure to rectify the situation may render it a battery.

Facts:

• Defendant was instructed by a policeman to park his car in order for the policeman to ask him questions.

• Defendant drover car onto the policeman’s foot.

• The defendant declined after being asked several times to do so to remove the vehicle from his foot.

• Q = was there a batter? Failure to rectify situation = battery? Yes

  • convicted of criminal offence

Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984] NI 356 NICA

• Soldier fired a baton band at a rioter but missed and hit the claimant.

• Intention to hit the rioter was transferred to the claimant who was able to establish a claimant battery unless the force could be justified.

Mental State required for battery (NOT MENS REA)

Cole v Turner (1704): '“the least touching in anger”

• Courts accepted that not all non-consensual contact amounts to battery.

• Difficult for courts to distinguish everyday contact and contact such ought to be considered as battery.

Collins V Wilcock[1984] 3 AII ER 37

• Interference with a persons body will only be lawful if consented to however there is a broad exception on the basis that certain forms of contact are unavailable and therefore acceptable.

Wilson v Pringle (1987) QB 237:

• claimant and defendant were both school boys.

• Claimant was injured when D pulled Cs bag from his shoulder.

• D claimed his actions were mere horse play and that no injury was intended.

• C argued the intention to cause injury was irrelevant, only had to be intentional application of force.

• Case went to COA - Q was what did the claimant have to prove?

• A) intentional touching or contact in one form or another of the claimant by the defendant and

• B) that the touching was hostile.

• Court added that to prove the touching was a battery it had to be hostile.

• hostile= not consented.

• Q how do you prove hostility?

• Does not have to be hostile to amount to battery!

Re F; F v West Berkshire Health Authority (1990) 2AC 1

• Consent to a surgical operation where the patient was suffering a serious mental disability. 

• Surgical treatment without the consent of someone legally entitled to give consent on his or her behalf or other legally entitled to give consent on his or her behalf or other legally authority (court) is battery.

• Intention must be proved, intended to commit the act that amounts to battery, intention to injure is not necessary. 

Defences: Consent

Chatterton v Gerson (1981)

R v Billinghurst (1978) (Criminal and civil case)

R v Brown (1993) (Criminal and civil proceedings)

Medical treatment: Chatterton v Gerson (1981)

• Claimant had operation to relieve pain, did not work and worsened issue by causing additional loss of sensation.

• Sued the surgeon in both trespass and negligence.

• Both claims failed.

• She argued she consented to the operation yet she wasn’t given a proper explanation of the risks which materialised into the loss of sensation.

• Courts held the claimants was explained broadly in terms of the procedure which was consented. (sufficient in 1981, not anymore)

Sports: R v Billinghurst (1978) Criminla and civil case

• Of the ball punchiung in rugby match.

• Defendant was convicted of the crime of assault.

• D argued that this was a physical game and one could expect this to happen during the game.

• When you consent to sport you consent to the rules of the game! = Not being punched off the ball.

Sado-masochism: R v Brown (1993) Criminal and civil proceedings

• sex activities conducted in private between a consented couple (adults).

• Acts caused significant injuries.

• Case went to the HOL where convictions for assault, ABH and malicious wounding were upheld.

• Defence was consent, yet majority in HOL (2/3) held the defence did not apply where injury was caused in the course of these sado acts and it wasn’t in the public interest to encourage this.

Defence: Self-defence

Must be reasonable and proportionate.

Attack must be immediate

Crockcroft v Smith (1705)

• Claimant was a clerk of the court and during scuffle the claimant attended to poke the defendant in the eye.

• In response the defendant bit off the claimants finger.

• Lord Justice Holt concludes the force used was unreasonable.

Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008]

• Ashley had been fatally shot by the police during an armed raid.

• Claimant = son and father of the deceased brought actions against the Chief Constable alledging amongst other thinngs negligence, assault and battery.

• Chief Constable conceded liability for negligence and for all compensatory damages flowing from the shooting itself.

• Issue= was the defence of self-defence available? Where the assailant held the honest and genuine belief that he was in danger even though such belief was unreasonable.

• Constable argued that the criteria for self defence in civil law should be the same as criminal law.

Defence: Necessity

Force used is the minimum necessary force used to preserve life.

Leigh v Gladstone (1909)

• Claimant was a suffregate

• In prison on hunger strike

• Forcibly fed by prison staff

• Argued battery

• Concluded: Act of prison staff was lawful on the basis they us ethe minimum necessary force to save her life otherwise she’d have starved to death in custody.

Imprisonment

The complete restriction of claimants freedom of movement without lawful excuse.

In other words tort is committed when the D has deprived the C with his or her liberty to do as they wish.

Must be unlawful imprisonment.

R v Governor of Brockhill Orison, ex parte Evans (No.2) [2001]

• If a prisoner is detained for a longer period sanctioned by the law they can argue false imprisonment.

Bird v Jones (1845)

• If there is a reasonable means of escape then there will be no claim for imprisonment.

• Boat race was being run on the river Thames, D fenced off part of the bridge to view the rave.

• C was in the habit of crossing the bridge and climbed over the fence, insisting on taking his normal route.

• Stopped by the D and told to go back the other way.

• As the alternative route was available it was held there was no false imprisonment.

Meeting v Graham-White Aviation Co Ltd (1919)

• C was employee of the D who suspected him of stealing paint.

• C was not told of these suspicions.

• Was asked to go with two police officers remained outside the office.

• Without his knowledge the officers remained outside of the office

• Once he realised he sued for false imprisonment

• Contended no false imprisonment as the C could leave at any time as he was unaware of the officers outside.

• COA disagreed and held that the Tort could be committed even though the C was not aware he was being detained at the present time.

Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Company Ltd (1910)

• C paid D to enter a wharf to board a ferry.

• Changed his mind and tried to go back.

• Paid further money to exit condition to enter a wharf.

• Held to be no imprisonment.

Here v Weardale Steel, coal and coke Co Ltd (1915)

• Shortly after commencement of a shift a coal miner declined to continue working on the grounds they thought it was unsafe and asked to be released.

• His employer refused to send the lift down for him.

• Employers sued the worker for breach of contract.

• Worker counter-claimed in respect of his detention.

• Held he went to the pit under the agreed conditions of the contract, he had no right to call upon his employers to make use of the special machinery at their cost to bring hum to the surface when he pleased.

Wilkinson v Downtown [1897]

• Doctrine its own special rule/tort.

• As a practical joke the D falsely told the C that her husband had been involved in accident and suffered two broke legs.

• As a result the C suffered vomiting and her hair turned white. She also suffered nervous shock.

• Action could not be brought in trespass as there was no contact or physical force.

• Courts also didn’t recognise liability for negligence in nervous shock at the time.

• Court held a tort had been committed but doesn’t fall under the existing categories.

• Suffered intentional infliction onto their mental state the rules applies.

Janvier v Sweeny [1919]

• Private detective pretended to be a police officer and threatened the C that she was in danger of arrest for associating with a German spy( her finance) as a result the C suffered psychiatric harm and was awarded compensation on the basis of the rule in Wilkinson v Downton.

Wainwright v Home Office [2003]

• Mother and son visited a prison

• they were subjected to an unnecessarily embarrassing strip search in contravention to the prison rules, the mother was unable to recover in the basis she suffered from emotional distress and not from a recognised psychiatric illness.

• Emotional distress did not suffice.

• Son who had learning difficulties was diagnosed post traumatic stress disorder.

  • HOL did not allow remedy as they held the officer did not intend to cause harm.

O v A [2015]

Three elements: A conduct element, a mental element and consequence element.

• C was a well known pianist and author who had written an auto biography.

• D suffered horrific sexual abuse as a child and wrote about it in graphic detail in the book.

• The Ds ex-wife attempted prevent the D from publishing the book on the basis their son would suffer psychological harm and publishing would amount to intentional infliction of harm (Wilkinson v Downton)

• SC noted that the Tort required words of conduct directed at the C for which their was no justification or lawful excuse.

• On the facts of freedom of expression the D had the right to publish it.

• In relation to the intention requirement, the court confirmed it was necessary to prove intention to cause psychological damage.

• IT was sufficient to prove the D intended to cause mere emotional distress so long as the result of the conduct was a recognised psychiatric illness.