Battery

Question 1

D may have committed battery

Answer 1

under common law, and charged under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, defined as “the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force”, as in ROLFE.

Question 2

The ACTUS REUS is

Answer 2

the application of of unlawful force. The force need not be hostile but must not be consented to, no injury is needed (THOMAS) but the force will be more than “every day contact” (COLLINS v WILLCOCK). Here D’s act was unlawful force as

Question 3

direct physical contact is not needed

Answer 3

as in DPP v K (acid in the hand dryer) SAVAGE (throwing drink), and contact with clothing is enough (THOMAS). Here there was unlawful force as

Question 4

The MENS REA is

Answer 4

intention or subjective recklessness AS TO the application of unlawful force, as in VENNA.

Question 5

D has

Answer 5

specific/direct intention as to the application of unlawful force (MOHAN) when

Question 6

D was

Answer 6

subjectively reckless as to the application of unlawful force as D foresaw a risk of unlawful force and carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when

Question 7

The Transferred malice principle applies,

Answer 7

where a crime intended for one person falls on another by accident, as in Latimer, so D will still be liable as the mens rea is transferred from X to V

Question 8

TO CONCLUDE,

Answer 8

D is likely to be liable as the AR and MR are satisfied.