Cases

Question 1

R v Meade and Belt [1823]

Answer 1

Historically, Holroyd: ‘no words or singing can amount to an assault’, instead it has to be a clear act of intention. This was then disproved by what case?

Question 2

Scott v Shepherd [1773]

Answer 2

Transferred intent, squib, plaintiff blinded, defendant found guilty even though third party involvement

Question 3

R v Ireland [1998]

follows on from Meade case

Answer 3

There is no reason why something said should be incapable of causing an apprehension of immediate personal violence’ (Lord Steyn)
Therefore disproves the principle set in Meade

Question 4

Collins v Wilcock [1984], Lord Goff stated …

What an assault is, it’s definition

Answer 4

An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person.

Question 5

Letang v Cooper [1965]

Answer 5

Damage which is direct and intentional = trespass
Damage that is unintentional and negligent = negligence
Lord Denning

Question 6

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010]

Smith LJ:

Answer 6

‘It is well established that all forms of trespass require an intentional act. An act of negligence will not suffice’.

Question 7

Stephens v Myers [1830]

Answer 7

Imminent/immediate danger, capacity to realise the threat, if defendant wasn’t blocked by third party then a battery would have been predicted

Question 8

Thomas v National Union of Miners [1986]

In contrast to Stephens v Myers

Answer 8

Line of police officers separated the two groups therefore threats were unlikely to cause apprehension of real harm (a battery).

Question 9

Tuberville v Savage [1669]

Answer 9

‘if it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you’. A conditional threat, whereby tuberville expressed no intent of harm in the circumstances.

Question 10

R v St George [1840]

Answer 10

The reasonableness is judged according to the claimants perceptions of the defendants actions.
Leads on to Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers, claimant must believe that threatened attack is possible and will be carried out.

Question 11

Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008]

Answer 11

Self defence as a defence to assault or battery, belief of being attacked (even if mistaken) must be honest and reasonably held in order for self-defence to be available.

Question 12

A v UK [1998]

Answer 12

Parental Authority, the use of force must be proportionate to the child’s behaviour and the child must understand the reasoning for the punishment. If not then it doesn’t qualify as a defence.

Question 13

F v West Berkshire HA [1990] (HL)

Answer 13

Necessity, court deemed that the doctor was acting in the best interests of the patient (who was mentally ill and lacked the mental capacity). Sterilisation

Question 14

Collins v Wilcock [1984], not all touching is unlawful, Goff LJ

Answer 14

‘general exception embracing all physical contact that is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life’

Question 15

Cole v Turner [1704]

Answer 15

Traditional view that is hostility and anger required for battery?

‘the least touching of another in anger’ is a battery’
Not always the case, like medical battery and horseplay in Blake v Galloway, or even police officer not stating they want to arrest someone but instead just want them to stay and talk, Collins v Wilcock
Therefore from Cole v Turner the level of force can be very low

Question 16

Pursell v Horn [1838]

Answer 16

Defendant threw water over the claimant and was liable despite the indirect nature of the contact.

Shows how board the courts will interpret then need for direct application of force in battery.

Question 17

Livingstone v MoD [1984]

Answer 17

Doctrine of transferred malice established, therefore liability in battery. Soldier fired at rioter, missed and struck the claimant.

Question 18

Blake v Galloway [2004]

Answer 18

Deemed horseplay, throwing of bark which even lead to serious injury.

Question 19

Wilson v Pringle [1987]

Answer 19

The modern approach, for battery the touching in question must be hostile, a room-Johnson LJ:
‘Hostility cannot be equated with Ill-will or malevolence’