ASSAULT
Definition: an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate,
unlawful, force on his person
- Defined by Goff LJ in Collins V Wilcock
An actionable assault requires:
1) The defendant must intend or be careless as to the claimant’s apprehension of unlawful force
2) The claimant must reasonably apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force
3) The threat must be imminent and direct
4) There must be no lawful justification/defence
- 'No words or singing are equivalent to an assault' (Lord Goff)– R v Meade and Belts (1823)
- (The House of Lords have more recently said in R v Constanza that an assault
can be committed in these circumstances)
- Words will not constitute an assault if they are phrased in such a way that negatives any threat
that the defendant is making
- Tuberville v Savage ('if it were not assize-time, I would not take such language
from you)
Reasonable apprehension-
- Stephens v Myers (1830)
(The defendant made a violent gesture at the plaintiff by waiving a clenched fist,
but was prevented from reaching him by the intervention of third parties. The
defendant was liable for assault)
(It was held that the claimant did not have to show that he was actually scared-
reasonable apprehension is objectively assessed)
- Thomas V NUM (the actions of the striking miners did not meet the requirements of
immediacy or directness necessary to establish assault)
Immediate and direct threat-
- R V Ireland
- (The defendant made a series of silent telephone calls over three months to
three different women. He was convicted under s.47 Offences against the
Person Act 1861. He appealed contending that silence cannot amount to an
assault and that psychiatric injury is not bodily harm. It was held that silence can
amount to an assault and psychiatric injury can amount to bodily harm).
, BATTERY
Definition: the actual intentional infliction of unlawful force on another person
- (Cole V Turner said ‘The least touching of another in anger is battery’)
An actionable battery requires:
1) The intentional infliction of unlawful force
2) The force must be immediate and direct
3) There must be no lawful justification/defences
Unlawful force-
- Wilson V Pringle (suggesting hostility IS necessary)
- Two school boys were playing in a corridor when one got injured; it was
argued that there was no battery as there was no hostility or intent to
injure.
- Re F (Mental patient sterilisation) (suggesting hostility is NOT necessary)
- Treatment by a surgeon who mistakenly thinks the patient has consented
- Collins V Wilcock (Goff LJ stated that touching will only amount to a battery
where it does not fall within the category of physical contacts ‘generally
acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life’)
Direct and immediate force-
- Livingstone V Ministry of Defence
- If the defendant intends to make contact with A but instead touches B, the
battery will be committed against B.
Intention-
- Williams V Humphrey (pushed into a swimming pool)
- The defendant does not need to have intended to cause the harm if it was a
foreseeable consequence of his actions. Therefore, the actual harm does not
have to be intentional; just the action.
Medical treatment-
- Prima facie medical treatment e.g. surgery amounts to a battery
- Re C (Adult refusal of treatment)
- Re T (blood transfusion)
- Patient had said she didn’t want any blood products as she was a Jehovah’s
whiteness, yet the doctor gave her a blood transfusion.
, FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Definition: the unlawful imposition of constraint upon another's freedom of movement from a particular
place.
An actionable claim for false imprisonment requires:
1) The defendant must have intended the act
2) There must be complete restraint within defined bounds
3) There must be no lawful excuse/defence
(Claimant need not know of the restraint at the time)
Complete restraint
- Bird V Jones
- Part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. Bird (P)
wanted to enter but he was prevented by Jones (D) and other policemen
because he had not paid the admission fee. Bird was able to enter the enclosure
by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. The policemen
refused access to where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he
was and would have allowed him to leave. P remained within the enclosure and
refused to leave. Bird sued Jones for false imprisonment. The defendant did not
fully restrict his movement, merely stopped him from going in the direction he
wished.
Iqbal V Prison officers Association
- The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined
within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities. In view of the strike,
a governor’s order had been issued confining the prisoners within their cells. The
Association appealed against a finding that it was liable. It was held that is was
wrong for the prison association to be held liable, the mere failure of the prison
officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment
contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and the failure was not the
direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.
Definition: an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate,
unlawful, force on his person
- Defined by Goff LJ in Collins V Wilcock
An actionable assault requires:
1) The defendant must intend or be careless as to the claimant’s apprehension of unlawful force
2) The claimant must reasonably apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force
3) The threat must be imminent and direct
4) There must be no lawful justification/defence
- 'No words or singing are equivalent to an assault' (Lord Goff)– R v Meade and Belts (1823)
- (The House of Lords have more recently said in R v Constanza that an assault
can be committed in these circumstances)
- Words will not constitute an assault if they are phrased in such a way that negatives any threat
that the defendant is making
- Tuberville v Savage ('if it were not assize-time, I would not take such language
from you)
Reasonable apprehension-
- Stephens v Myers (1830)
(The defendant made a violent gesture at the plaintiff by waiving a clenched fist,
but was prevented from reaching him by the intervention of third parties. The
defendant was liable for assault)
(It was held that the claimant did not have to show that he was actually scared-
reasonable apprehension is objectively assessed)
- Thomas V NUM (the actions of the striking miners did not meet the requirements of
immediacy or directness necessary to establish assault)
Immediate and direct threat-
- R V Ireland
- (The defendant made a series of silent telephone calls over three months to
three different women. He was convicted under s.47 Offences against the
Person Act 1861. He appealed contending that silence cannot amount to an
assault and that psychiatric injury is not bodily harm. It was held that silence can
amount to an assault and psychiatric injury can amount to bodily harm).
, BATTERY
Definition: the actual intentional infliction of unlawful force on another person
- (Cole V Turner said ‘The least touching of another in anger is battery’)
An actionable battery requires:
1) The intentional infliction of unlawful force
2) The force must be immediate and direct
3) There must be no lawful justification/defences
Unlawful force-
- Wilson V Pringle (suggesting hostility IS necessary)
- Two school boys were playing in a corridor when one got injured; it was
argued that there was no battery as there was no hostility or intent to
injure.
- Re F (Mental patient sterilisation) (suggesting hostility is NOT necessary)
- Treatment by a surgeon who mistakenly thinks the patient has consented
- Collins V Wilcock (Goff LJ stated that touching will only amount to a battery
where it does not fall within the category of physical contacts ‘generally
acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life’)
Direct and immediate force-
- Livingstone V Ministry of Defence
- If the defendant intends to make contact with A but instead touches B, the
battery will be committed against B.
Intention-
- Williams V Humphrey (pushed into a swimming pool)
- The defendant does not need to have intended to cause the harm if it was a
foreseeable consequence of his actions. Therefore, the actual harm does not
have to be intentional; just the action.
Medical treatment-
- Prima facie medical treatment e.g. surgery amounts to a battery
- Re C (Adult refusal of treatment)
- Re T (blood transfusion)
- Patient had said she didn’t want any blood products as she was a Jehovah’s
whiteness, yet the doctor gave her a blood transfusion.
, FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Definition: the unlawful imposition of constraint upon another's freedom of movement from a particular
place.
An actionable claim for false imprisonment requires:
1) The defendant must have intended the act
2) There must be complete restraint within defined bounds
3) There must be no lawful excuse/defence
(Claimant need not know of the restraint at the time)
Complete restraint
- Bird V Jones
- Part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. Bird (P)
wanted to enter but he was prevented by Jones (D) and other policemen
because he had not paid the admission fee. Bird was able to enter the enclosure
by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. The policemen
refused access to where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he
was and would have allowed him to leave. P remained within the enclosure and
refused to leave. Bird sued Jones for false imprisonment. The defendant did not
fully restrict his movement, merely stopped him from going in the direction he
wished.
Iqbal V Prison officers Association
- The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined
within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities. In view of the strike,
a governor’s order had been issued confining the prisoners within their cells. The
Association appealed against a finding that it was liable. It was held that is was
wrong for the prison association to be held liable, the mere failure of the prison
officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment
contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and the failure was not the
direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.
