Battery

Question 1

Collins v Wilcock (concerning Battery)

Answer 1

Intentional, unlawful, immediate and direct application of force.

Question 2

Williams v Humphrey

Answer 2

Only intent to touch is enough.

Question 3

Livingstone v Ministry of Defence

Answer 3

Transferred Intent. Bullet struck another but did not matter.

Question 4

Fagan v Police Commissioner

Answer 4

Found guilty despite no initial voluntary intent to drive onto the foot.

Question 5

“Unlawful” aspect of Collins v Wilcock

Answer 5

Must exceed physical contact which is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life in order to be unlawful.

Question 6

“Immediate and Direct”

Answer 6

Reynolds v Clarke, Scott v Shepherd, Pursell v Horn

Question 7

“Force”

Answer 7

Application of force:

• any physical contact as in Cole v Turner
• does not require physical harm as in R v Cotesworth
• does not require personal contact as in Scott v Shepherd

Question 8

Cole v Turner

Answer 8

The least of touching in anger is battery

Question 9

R v Cotesworth

Answer 9

Spitting does not cause harm but still is an application of force and therefore constitutes battery.

Question 10

Scott v Shepherd

Answer 10

Lit squib was impersonal.

Question 11

Pursell v Horn

Answer 11

Water thrown over Cl. despite indirectness. No personal contact.