Battery Crime
Battery crime refers to the intentional and unlawful physical contact with another person, often resulting in harm or injury. It is a criminal offense and is distinct from assault, which does not necessarily involve physical contact. Battery is typically defined and regulated by criminal law, and the severity of the crime can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the extent of the harm caused.
8 Key excerpts on "Battery Crime"
eBook - ePub- Claudia Carr, Maureen Johnson(Authors)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...This is Cunningham recklessness which is subjective – refresh your memory by taking another look at Chapter 2. Battery Battery is also a common law offence charged under s 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (see above). Battery usually suggests that someone has been beaten up or at least injured, but in fact the victim does not have to suffer any harm at all. The legal definition comes from the case of Faulkner v Talbot [1981] 1 WLR 1528. Actus reus The actus reus of battery is the application of unwanted, unlawful force to the victim. It can be applied directly or indirectly. In the case of Haystead v DPP (2000) 2 Cr App R 339 a man hit a woman who then dropped the child she was holding. The defendant was found guilty of battery of the child also. There was a direct battery of the woman and an indirect battery of the child. Unwanted force inflicted on another may be lawful, such as in cases where a person is acting in self defence or where a police officer is acting in the line of duty. Mens rea The mens rea of battery is intention to apply unwanted, unlawful force to another, or being reckless as to whether that force is unwanted. The definitions of intention and reckless are the same as for assault (above). Assault occasioning actual bodily harm This offence is found under s 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It will be charged when there has been an assault OR a battery on another which results in some physical harm to the person...
eBook - ePub- Rodger Geary(Author)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
...The degree of ‘violence’ required is minimal and can consist of the least unauthorised touching of another (Cole v Turner (1705)). Touching a person’s clothing will amount to a battery provided the contact is both unauthorised and capable of being felt by the victim (R v Thomas (1985)). The courts presume that people impliedly consent to the normal touching that occurs in everyday life (Collins v Wilcock (1984)). A perusal of the relevant case law and some commentaries by academic authors suggests that there appears to be some confusion as to whether or not a battery can be inflicted indirectly. On the one hand, there is a long line of authority which establishes that there is no need for the defendant to directly come into physical contact with the victim: Gibbon v Pepper (1695), Scott v Shepard (1773), Martin (1881), R v Thomas (1985), DPP v K (1990) and, most recently, Haystead v DPP (2000). However, most discussions and attempted definitions of a battery tend to emphasise a requirement of direct infliction of force. Perhaps the reconciliation of this apparent contradiction is to accept that a battery requires a direct application of force, but also to accept that there is no need for the defendant’s body to come into direct contact with the victim’s, provided the force is applied by means of an intermediate medium such as a thrown brick, a savage dog, a trap, etc. Mens Rea As noted above, the mens rea for both assault and battery is intention or recklessness in the Cunningham sense. Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Definition Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 provides that it is an offence to commit ‘... any assault occasioning actual bodily harm’. Actus Reus An ‘assault’ within the meaning of s 47 can consist of either an assault in the technical sense of causing someone to fear immediate unlawful violence, or in the sense of a battery (that is, the infliction of unlawful violence)...
eBook - ePub- Timon Hughes-Davies, Nathan Tamblyn(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...In other words, battery is about contact, assault is about perceiving contact. In popular speech, battery and assault tend to be used interchangeably. Thus, we might hear in the news how a victim was assaulted in the street when they were hit over the head. However, in law, battery and assault are distinct, with different technical requirements, and should be treated as such. ____________ 13.2 Battery Key learning point Battery is where the defendant intentionally or recklessly, and unlawfully, makes direct contact with the claimant. In this section, we discuss the following topics: how battery requires intentional or reckless behaviour; how it requires direct contact; how contact must be unlawful; how consent can make contact lawful; and the specific context of giving consent to medical treatment. Intentional or reckless contact As for the meaning of intentional and reckless, we might take a lead from criminal law: According to R v Woollin, 2 an outcome is intentional when a defendant seeks that outcome on purpose. So, if I want to hit you with a snowball, and I throw the snowball, and it hits you, I achieve my goal, and my act was intentional, whether my motive was benign or malicious, and however unlikely I was to find my target. 2 [1999] AC 82 (HL). Also, according to Woollin, it may be intentional when an outcome was virtually certain to be the consequence of acting, as the defendant appreciated. A frequent hypothetical example here is when a person puts a bomb on a plane, looking to blow up the plane in order to claim on insurance. They might hope that all the passengers survive, and they do not seek their deaths, but nevertheless they appreciate that passenger deaths are inevitable. In such a circumstance, the bomber can be deemed to intend their deaths. According to R v G, 3 a person is reckless when they foresaw a risk, but took it anyway when to do so was unreasonable in the circumstances known to them...
eBook - ePub- (Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Straightforward Publishing Digital(Publisher)
...In this case, the victim was frightened by the accused, who was staring at her through the windows of her home. The defence in this case argued that the action could not have constituted assault because all windows and doors were locked. The Appeal Court held that it was enough that the woman felt herself to be in danger of having violence inflicted on her. Mens rea of assault This is satisfied when the defendant intends to cause the victim to apprehend immediate physical violence or does this recklessly. Battery This offence arises when the defendant intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful physical force to another person. The difference between assault and battery is that an assault is committed where the victim believes that he is likely to be subjected to harm and a battery takes place only where force is applied. The law starts with the assumption that an individual has the right to be protected from molestation. In the case of Collins v Wilcock 1984, Goff L J stated’ the fundamental principle, plain and incontestable, is that every person’s body is inviolate’. The above also applies to the police when apprehending a person. They are not allowed to grab or touch a person unless making an arrest. The touching of clothing can also constitute an assault. In the case of Thomas 1985 the rubbing of a girl’s skirt was held to amount to battery. Not all touching is unlawful. In Collins v Wilcock, it was noted: Most of the physical contacts of ordinary life are not actionable because they are implicitly consented by all who move in society and so expose themselves to risk of bodily contact. One case which illustrates this is Donnelly v Jackman 1970, where the court held that the officer in question did not commit a battery when he tapped on the other’s shoulder to attract attention. Obviously, it is a question of degree. Indirect battery Battery need not be directly inflicted on the victim. Scott v Shepherd 1773, illustrated this...
eBook - ePub- Routledge(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...47 Offences against the Person Act 1861 • malicious wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm – s. 20 Offences against the Person Act 1861 • malicious wounding/causing grievous bodily harm with intent – s. 18 Offences against the Person Act 1861 This list begins with the least serious and works its way down. In an answer to a problem question, you would usually work the other way around, starting with the most serious offence first. This chapter also looks at the offences found in ss 23–24 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the issue of consent. It then examines the main sexual offences found in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. ASSAULT AND BATTERY Actus reus Assault and battery are separate summary offences. The actus reus of an assault consists of causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful physical violence (Logden v DPP [1976]). For many years, it was uncertain whether words alone could constitute an assault (R v Meade and Belt [1823] ; R v Wilson [1955]). In R v Burstow ; R v Ireland [1997], the House of Lords held that an assault could be committed by words alone, thus ending this longstanding uncertainty. The emphasis is now on the effect of the defendant’s actions on the victim, rather than the means adopted by the defendant. The actus reus of a battery consists of the actual infliction of unlawful physical violence. The degree of ‘violence’ required is minimal and can consist of the least touching of another (Cole v Turner [1705]). Touching a person’s clothing will amount to a battery, provided the contact is both unauthorised and capable of being felt by the victim (R v Thomas [1985]). The courts presume that people impliedly consent to the normal touching that occurs in everyday life (Collins v Wilcock [1984]). A battery can occur by indirect force where the defendant uses a weapon or other instrument to inflict physical harm on the victim, such as a car (Fagan v MPC [1968]). Also a battery may be caused by the indirect use of force...
eBook - ePub- Lisa Cherkassky(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...C hapter 9 Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Non-fatal offences against the person usually require some kind of infliction of force upon the body. The offence charged will depend on the seriousness of the injury inflicted and the mental element of the defendant. Non-fatal offences against the person will be explored in detail in this chapter. The offences listed above are very old criminal offences. Assault and battery are founded in common law (although the Criminal Justice Act 1988 recognises their existence). Actual bodily harm, malicious wounding and grievous bodily harm are statutory offences dating back to 1861. 9.1 Assault Assault is a common law offence and is defined by case law. However, it is charged under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988: ‘Common law assault [and battery] shall be summary of-fences and a person guilty of either of them shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.’ 9.1.1 The Actus Reus of Assault The act of assault was defined by Collins v Wilcock (1984). Workpoint The actus reus of assault is below...
...9 Trespass to the person 9.1 Assault 9.1.1 Definitions 1 The old view was that assault was an incomplete battery. 2 Modern definition is intentionally and directly causing a person to fear being victim of an imminent battery (Letang v Cooper (1965)). 9.1.2 Ingredients of the tort 1 Assault is free-standing, so intention refers to the impression it will produce in claimant, not as to what defendant intends to do. Compare R v St George (1840) with Blake v Barnard (1840). 2 No harm or contact is required (I de S et Ux v W de S (1348)). 3 Requires active behaviour, so merely barring entry is no assault (Innes v Wylie (1844)). 4 However, threatening behaviour can be assault (Read v Coker (1853)). 5 An attempt to commit a battery which is thwarted is still an assault (Stephens v Myers (1830)) – but there is no assault if it is impossible to carry out a battery since there could be no apprehension of it (Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1986]). 6 Traditionally words alone were not an assault: but could disprove an assault (Tuberville v Savage (1669)); and a threat on its own can be assault (Read v Coker); and in contract law, words can amount to duress if the threat is sufficiently serious (Barton v Armstrong (1969)); more recently, in crime, words alone and even silence have been accepted as assault (R v Ireland; R v Burstow (1998)). 7 The claimant must be fearful of an impending battery. Compare Smith v Superintendent of Woking (1983) with R v Martin (1881). 9.1.3 Defences 1 Consent (as in sports). 2 Self-defence (e.g...
eBook - ePub- Jacqueline Martin(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...closed window (Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking (1983)) or via a telephone call (Ireland (1998)). 5 Fear of any unwanted touching is sufficient: the force or unlawful personal violence that is feared need not be serious. Mens rea of an assault 1 The mens rea must be either an intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused. 2 The test for recklessness is subjective; the defendant must realise the risk that his acts/words could cause another to fear unlawful personal violence. 11.1.2 Battery The defendant intentionally or subjectively recklessly applies unlawful force to another. Actus reus of battery 1 Force can include the slightest touching; but not the ordinary ‘jostlings’ of everyday life (Wilson v Pringle (1986)). 2 It may be through a continuing act (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)). 3 It may be through an indirect act such as a booby trap (Martin (1881), DPP v K (1990)); or causing a child to fall to the floor by punching the person holding the child (Haystead (2000)). 4 It. has been held that a defendant’s failure to tell a policewoman searching his pockets that there was a hypodermic needle in one of them can amount to the actus reus (DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003)). 5 Where police officers held D by the arm when they did not intend to arrest D, this was held to be unlawful force (Collins v Wilcock (1984), Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008)). 6 The unlawfulness of the force may be negated by the victim’s consent (see 8.6) or if it is used in self-defence (see 8.5). Mens rea of battery 1 The mens rea must be either an intention to apply unlawful physical force or recklessness. 2 Where recklessness is relied on, it is a subjective test, i.e...
