Battery

Question 1

What is the Actus Reus (AR) for battery?

Answer 1

Causing a victim to apprehend immediate force

Battery involves the application of this unlawful force to another person.

Question 2

Define battery in legal terms.

Answer 2

Application of unlawful force, regardless of injury

Battery is considered a non-fatal offence.

Question 3

What case established that touching clothes can constitute battery?

Answer 3

R v Thomas (1985)

In this case, touching a girl’s skirt was deemed sufficient for battery.

Question 4

How can battery be applied

Answer 4

Direct and indirect, recklessness

Pagett, Woollin, Cunningham

Question 5

When is force unlawful?

Answer 5

Through implied consent eg sports or ordinary jostling eg messing around

Question 6

In which case was there ordinary jostling?

Answer 6

Wilson v Pringle (1986)

The court found that the actions were not malicious and lacked mens rea.

Question 7

True or False: Battery requires physical injury to the victim.

Answer 7

False

Battery does not require injury; it is about the application of force.

Question 8

Fill in the blank: Battery is defined as the application of _______.

Answer 8

unlawful force

Question 9

What are examples of activities that may involve battery?

Answer 9

• Rugby
• Boxing
• Martial arts

These activities may involve the application of force that can be considered battery under certain circumstances.

Question 10

What is the significance of ‘ordinary jostlings’ in relation to battery?

Answer 10

They may not constitute battery

Ordinary jostlings typically do not meet the threshold for unlawful force.

Question 11

What is ‘ordinary jostling’?

Answer 11

Inevitable contact in crowded places like supermarkets or busy streets

Referenced in Collins v Wilcock (1984), where a woman could not complain about incidental contact.

Question 12

What was the main issue in Collins v Wilcock (1984)?

Answer 12

A woman walking away from an officer was grabbed, leading to a struggle and a scratch on the officer

The case illustrates the limits of permissible contact in public spaces.

Question 13

In the context of battery, what constitutes ‘ordinary jostling’?

Answer 13

Shaking hands, a slap on the back, or brushing shoulders etc.

Exceeding this ordinary jostling can lead to a battery claim.

Question 14

What was the ruling in Fagan v MPC?

Answer 14

Force can be applied through a continuing act, such as driving over a foot and staying on it

This case emphasizes the application of force in a continuous manner.

Question 15

What incident was involved in the case of Santana Bermudez (2003)?

Answer 15

An officer was injured when D. failed to inform officer about a sharp object in pockets

This case highlights force can be through omission due to the duty to inform about potential dangers.

Question 16

True or False: An omission can lead to liability if the defendant has a duty to act.

Answer 16

True

Liability may arise when a person’s failure to act causes harm.

Question 17

Fill in the blank: A defendant can be liable for an injury caused by a _______ if they neglect their duty.

Answer 17

[sharp object]

Example from Santana Bermudez (2003) where failure to disclose a sharp object led to injury.

Question 18

What did DPP v K conclude?

Answer 18

Force can be applied indirectly through objects.

D. placed acid from chem lab in hand dryer as a prank injuring other student

Question 19

What is the mens rea of battery?

Answer 19

Intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force

Mohan, Cunningham

Only direct/reckless

Question 20

Battery actus reus explain exam paragraph

Answer 20

For the actus reus, D apply unlawful force to V.
Wilson v Pringle shows this force must be hostile and go beyond the ordinary jostlings of everyday life.

Question 21

Battery mens rea explain exam paragraph

Answer 21

The mens rea of battery is applying unlawful force intentionally or recklessly. Intention refers to direct intent, where D. aims to bring about the consequence (R v Mohan). Recklessness refers to D. recognising a risk but carrying on regardless (R v Cunningham) Therefore to have the mesn rea for battery D. must either aim to cause the consequence or see a risk but carry on regardless, applying unlawful force.