Battery and assault case law

Collins v Wilcock (1984)

A police officer grabbed a woman’s arm to prevent her from leaving, even though she was not being arrested. The woman scratched the officer in response, and the court considered whether the initial contact was lawful. It was held that physical contact beyond everyday social interactions, without justification, constitutes battery. The officer’s actions were deemed unlawful, and the case highlighted the principle that even minimal contact can amount to battery. This case established that implied consent in social interactions does not apply to all forms of physical contact.

R v Thomas (1985)

The defendant touched a young girl’s skirt, and the court had to determine whether touching clothing could amount to battery. It was ruled that physical contact with a person’s clothing is equivalent to touching their body. This decision reinforced the idea that battery does not require direct contact with the skin. The court emphasized that any non-consensual contact, even with clothing, could be unlawful. This case clarified the boundaries of personal autonomy and battery.

Fagan v MPC (1969)

The defendant accidentally drove onto a police officer’s foot but refused to move when asked, causing prolonged injury. The key issue was whether the act of remaining on the foot could constitute battery. The court held that battery can be a continuing act, where the initial act may be unintentional but subsequent actions make it unlawful. This established that battery is not confined to a single moment in time. The case is significant for recognizing ongoing acts as capable of constituting offences.

DPP v K (1990)

A schoolboy placed sulfuric acid in a hand dryer as a prank, which later injured another student. The court had to decide whether the indirect application of force could constitute battery. It was ruled that battery can be committed indirectly, such as through an object or device. The defendant was found guilty because his actions set into motion the chain of events leading to harm. This case broadened the understanding of how battery can be carried out.

R v Ireland (1997)

The defendant made repeated silent phone calls to three women, causing them to suffer psychiatric harm. The victims experienced fear of immediate harm due to the nature of the calls. The court held that silence could amount to an assault if it caused the victim to apprehend unlawful force. It was also ruled that psychiatric injury could qualify as bodily harm. This case expanded the scope of assault to include non-verbal actions.

Logdon v DPP (1976)

The defendant showed the victim an imitation firearm, causing her to believe she was in immediate danger. Although the gun was unloaded, the victim’s belief in the threat was sufficient for assault. The court emphasized that it is the victim’s perception, not the actual capability to carry out the threat, that matters. This clarified that assault can occur without any physical force or real danger. The defendant was found guilty because his actions caused reasonable apprehension of harm.

Tuberville v Savage (1669)

The defendant placed his hand on his sword but stated, “If it were not assize time, I would not take such language.” The victim interpreted this as a lack of immediate threat because the courts were in session. The court ruled that words can negate an assault even when threatening gestures are made. This established that the context of the actions is crucial in determining whether an assault occurred. The defendant’s statement was seen as contradicting the immediacy required for assault