Battery

Question 1

Definition

Answer 1

A battery is the direct and intentional application of unwanted force to another without that persons consent

Question 2

Direct is a broad term

Answer 2

The battery must be the direct result of the defendants intentional act.
This is easily seen as when a punch or other form of physical touching occurs

Question 3

Gibbons v Pepper (1695)

Answer 3

The defendant whipped a horse so that it bolted and ran down the claimant

Principle: directness can be widely interpreted

Question 4

Pursell v Horn (1838)

Answer 4

Facts- the defendant threw water over the claimant

Principle- the face applied does not have to be personal contact and the defendant was liable in battery

Question 5

Nash v Sheen (1953)

Answer 5

Facts- claimant had gone to the defendants hairdressing salon where she was to receive a ‘permanent wave’
A tone rise was applied to her hair without her agreement causing a skin reaction

Principle- only a positive act will suffice

Widely interpreted

Question 6

Scott v Shepherd(1773)

Answer 6

Shepherd threw a lighted squib into a market house
It landed on the stall of a gingerbread seller.
Picked it up and threw it across the market-preventing damage to his stall
It struck the claimant in the face, blinding him in one eye

Principle-

Willis and Ryal- that fools and mischievous persons must answer for consequences which common sense would unhesitatingly attribute to their wrong doing

Question 7

DPP v Haystead (2000)

Answer 7

Man punched a woman in the face twice, baby in arms so she dropped the baby which hit his head

Principle: a battery can be committed ‘indirectly’ where it is via a third party (eg a weapon)

Question 8

Need for hostility

Answer 8

Since we cannot be expected to go around consenting to every trivial interference with our persons such as being jostled at football match of concert or brushing against someone in a queue, the courts have tried to find some other ingredient to distinguish a battery from legally unobjectionable behaviour

Question 9

Touching

Answer 9

Cole v Turner (1704) it was said that “the least touching of another in anger is battery
(Eg unwanted kiss)

Hostility was identified as a requirement in Wilson v Pringle but this conflicts with Colins v Wilcock and hostile touching could not be a requirement in medical battery- F v West Berks HA

Question 10

Cole v Turner (1704)

Answer 10

Facts- 2 men narrow passageway

Principle- not a battery as there is no hostility- in order to be an actionable battery

Question 11

Collins v Wilcock (1984)

Answer 11

Facts- Police officer needed to obtain name and address in order to caution her.
Destined woman by holding her elbow
The woman scratched the police officer and was charged with assault

Principle- reasonable force may only be used to make an arrest and has to be proportionate to the crime committed

Question 12

Wilson v Pringle (1986)

Answer 12

Facts- schoolboy admitted he had pulled a bag which was over the shoulder of another boy.
The boy fell over and was injured

Principle- touching must be proven to be a hostile touching

Question 13

F v West Berks HA (1989)

Answer 13

Facts- F 36, mental age of a 4 year old, she started a relationship with another patient- pregnancy would be disastrous and contraception would be out of the question
Steriliser her- lawful

Principle- must be what a reasonable person would do in the situation, acting in the best interests of the person

• no medical battery
• doesn’t need hostility

Question 14

R v Brown (and others) (1994)

Answer 14

Facts- Sadi-masochistic homosexuals willingly co-operated in the commissions of acts of violence against each other for sexual pleasure

Principle- if touching is lawful then it is hostile

Question 15

The mental element

Answer 15

It may have been, in the past, that battery was a strict liability offence, but this was no longer the cafe following……

Question 16

1. Fowler v Lanning (1953)

Answer 16

Facts- D shot C in a hunting party

Principle- Court decided rust battery requires intention or negligence
State of affairs, not a state of mind

Question 17

The idea that a battery could be caused either intentionally or negligently was challenged in

Answer 17

Letang v Cooper (1965)

Question 18

Letang v Cooper (1965)

Answer 18

Facts- Mrs Letang was sunbathing on a piece of grass where cars were parked.
Mr Cooper drove into the car park, he did not see her and car went over her legs

Principle- if the action is intentional it is the tort of assault and battery
If negligent and causing damage, the tort of negligence

Intention to do act, not intention of the outcome

Carelessly or negligently will not suffice

(It is only the physical contact that’s needed NOT the resulting damage. (Wilson and Pringle)

Question 19

Limited right of privacy in relation to searches:

Wainwright v Home Office (2003)

Answer 19

Facts- forced to a strip search which they did not consent to
Sued for trespass to the person based on a right to outback
The intention essential for proving the tort could not be proved

Principle- harm caused was unintentional
Trespass (here a battery) does not extend to recognition of a right to privacy under Article 8 HRA