OAPA: Battery Flashcards
what type of crime is battery
result crime
which section + case distinguishes assault and battery
-s.39 CJA; assault and battery are two different crimes
-Collins v Wilcock; Goff LJ confirmed distinction that battery involves unlawful/unwanted contact and assault involves causing another to apprehend unlawful/unwanted contact
-reaffirmed in Nelson
what is the AR of battery
-infliction of any unlawful personal violence by D upon V
what 4 cases provide what is not necessary for consent
-Faulkner v Talbot; need not be hostile, rude or aggressive
-direct infliction not necessary (R v Martin, Scott v Shepherd, R v Ireland; Barstow)
what happened/ is the legal principle in Faulkner v Talbot
-battery need not be hostile, rude or aggressove
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Martin
-battery need not be inflicted directly
-D yelled fire + cut exit lights audience got trampled
what happened/ is the legal principle in Scott v Shepherd
-battery need not be inflicted directly
-D threw squib into crowd, others threw it away from them
-only D convicted as it was a continuing act
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Ireland; Burstow
-battery need not be directly inflicted
-silent phone calls are not direct infliction
give 2 cases about general consent to battery
-Collins v Wilcock; generally, consent is not a defence to battery but there is implied consent in everyday circumstances
-Coward v Baddeley; touching person to get attention is not battery
what happened/ is the legal principle in Collins v Wilcock
-generally, consent is not a defence to battery but there is implied consent in everyday circumstances
what happened/ is the legal principle in Coward v Baddeley
-touching person to get attention is not battery
can battery be committed by omissions
-generally, no, must be an act (Innes v Wylie)
-but can be liable if duty arises from D creating a serious situation (R v Miller, DPP v Santa Bermudez)
-Fagan; D omitted to remove car off V so continually committing battery through a continuing act
what is the legal principle in Innes v Wylie
-generally, battery cannot be committed via omission, must be an act
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Miller and DPP v Santa Bermudez
-but can be liable via omission if duty arises from D creating a serious situation (R v Miller)
-DPP v Santa Bermudez; D omitted telling police searching him of syrunge in pocket
what happened/ is the legal principle in Fagan
-D omitted to remove car off V so continually committing battery through a continuing act
