Trespass To The Person Cases

Question 1

F V West Berkshire health authority

Answer 1

All physical contact generally accepted in everyday life is not unlawful.

Question 2

Wilson v pringle

Answer 2

-Two school boys were playing
-one of them pulled the bag of the other and this led to the other school boy falling and injuring himself.
-the school boy who injured his friend argued he did not intend to injure the friend.
- the court held that the intention to injure is not necessary or an essential ingredient of an action to treason to the person
- what is relevant is an intentional to carry out the act.

Question 3

Dodwell v Burford

Answer 3

DIRECT APPLICATION OF FORCE
-Where the defendant struck the claimants horse with the result that it bolted and the claimant was thrown from the horse
- it was held that the defendant was liable for battery

Question 4

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 4

-Police officer wished to question a woman in relation to to her alleged activity as a prostitution
- though the police officer had no authority to arrest her, he still decided to try and detain her. He did this by grabbing her arm
- in order to resist this the woman scratched the police officer.
- she was charging with physical assaulting a police officer in the line of duty.
- the court held that the police officer was acting outside the scope of his powers as he had no authority to arrest the women.
Accordingly, the woman did not physically assault the police officer in the course of his duty.
- the court went on to hold that actually the police officer was liable for battery. This attention in order to question her
- however, this act of grabbing her arm went beyond generally accepted conduct for the purpose of getting someone’s attention
- Accordingly, the police officer was liable
- however, the woman was not liable because she was entitled to resist the action in self defence

Question 5

R v Ireland

Answer 5

-The defendant constantly called three separate women over the course of three months.
- during each call he did not speak, instead breathed heavily on the line.
- he was convicted for assault occasioning actual bodily harm
- the issue was wether silence could amount to assault
- the court held that silicone causing psychiatric injury constitutes assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
* the relevant of this case in the topic at hand is what was said by lord Steyn who said that, “words by themselves, even if not accompanied by any actions, could cause apprehension of immediate contact”

Question 6

Tuberville v Savage

Answer 6

-A man placed his hand on his sword and told another, “if it were not assize-time, I would not take such language.”
- the issue
- the question was to wether laying a hand on a sword and stating the aforementioned statement constituted an unlawful assault by placing the other into reasonable of immediate violence.
-The court held that an assault required both (1) the intention and (2) the act of assault
- accordingly, the court held that the facts did not give rise as the man merely stipulated that he would have the intention to assault if it were not assize-time
- it was, indeed, assize-time and the man’s declaration expressly stipulated that he would not and did not intend to commit an assault.
- thus, there could have been no assault as there were no intention nor act of assault, nor imminent threat thereof.

Question 7

Tomas v National Union of Mineworkers

Answer 7

-During a set of strikes organised by the NUM, the claimant, who had was a miner wanted to continue working in the mines instead of going on strike.
- He, along with other non-striking miners had to be bussed to the mines in order to get to work through the pickets.
- everyday this involved being driven through an aggressive crowd of striking miners who shouted threats towards the claimants and others who were on the bus, in addition to the making violent gestures in their direction
- however, there was always police at the scene who stood between the pickets and the bus and, in addition the claimant and the other miners were protected by the bus itself
-The issue in this case was wether it was necessary for the defendant to be able to carry out their threats immediately for him to be guilty of an assault.
-the court held that the actions of the defendant could not constitute an assault as the crowned lacked the the capacity to immediately carry out its threats.

Question 8

Bird v Jones

Answer 8

Total restraint
-part of highway closed
-jumped over
- prevented from going back the same way he came
- Not FP because the restraint was not total

Question 9

Robinson v Balmain New ferry company

Answer 9

Penny to cross the gate

Question 10

Sayers v Harlow urban city council

Answer 10

Cause of imprisonment (not carelessness)
Trapped in toilet

Question 11

Meering v Grahame-white Aviation

Answer 11

Knowledge
- 3 detectives at door