Trespass to the Person

Trespass to the Person

Trespass to the Person
 Protection of interests in the person, rather than land or reputation etc.
 All intentional, not negligent conduct.
 Boundaries of liability- if the conduct falls in the boundaries, tort has been
committed.

Place of Trespass in Modern Law of Tort
 Assault, battery and false imprisonment are civil wrongs as well as crimes.
 Rarely brought into civil law.

 Most of the time involvement of police is sufficient.
 Can be costly to bring action against wrongdoer.
 Civil law co-exists with Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (operated by the
state making payments in cases where trespass also amounts to criminal offence).
 Tort of negligence is dominant, best way to complain.

 Important for protection of individual rights; bodily integrity and freedom of
movement.

Assault and Battery
 Goff LJ in Collins v Wilcock (1984) 1 WLR 1172, 1177:

 ‘An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of
immediate, unlawful force on his person’.
 ‘A battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person’.

Assault
Act by the defendant which is intended to and does cause the claimant reasonably to
apprehend the direct and immediate application of force.
 Defendant intends that the claimant apprehends the application of direct and
immediate force.
 Claimant reasonably apprehends the direct and immediate application of force.
 Claimant must have reasonable belief that defendant has the ability to carry out the
battery.




 Stephen v Myers (1840) 4 C & P 349.

,  Incident occurred at a parish meeting, claimant was chairing the meeting and there
was an angry discussion. The defendant moved towards the claimant, clenching his
fists, and was stopped before reaching the claimant and carrying out any battery.
 The claimant claimed damages arguing the amounted to assault. At the time, such
cases were heard before a jury (not the case today). Judge said, ‘it’s not every threat
that constitutes an assault, but only those where the claimant reasonably
apprehends that the defendant has the ability to carry out the assault’. Jury awarded
damage, but only of 1 shilling.

 Thomas v NUM (1986) Ch 20.

 Coincidence of the minor strike in the 1980s.
 Pickets cheered and jeered abuse at minors that were working, they went into the
colliery by bus, but held back by a heavy police presence.
 Court emphasised that there must be reasonable apprehension of an immediate
battery in order to be classed as assault. There is no assault even if the conduct is
threatening and intimidating, if it can’t be the case that the claimant has a
reasonable belief that the defendant has the ability to carry out his threat.
 Given the heavy police presence, those who were working were not believed to have
a reasonable belief that they had the means of carrying out those threats in a direct
and immediate application of force.


What threats constitute an assault?
 Mead and Belt’s case (1823) 1 Law 184, Holroyd J: ‘no words or singing are
equivalent to an assault’.
 R v Ireland, R v Burstow (1998) AC 147, HL: ‘silent telephone calls may constitute an
assault’.
 Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod 3: ‘words accompanying a menacing gesture
negative the interference’.
 Read v Coker (1853) 13 CB 850: ‘conditional threat’.



Battery
Intentional and direct application of force to another person.
 Application of force.

 Any physical contact with another person.
 Doesn’t have to be physical harm.
 Doesn’t have to be personal contact.
 Pursell v Horn (1883) 8 A & E 602.

 Defendant committed a battery when he threw quantities of boiling water over the
claimant. There was personal contact through the means of water.
 Direct.