Assault

Immediate fear of unlawful violence

1. Act by defendant
2. Reasonable fear of immediate unlawful personal violence
3. No need for actual violence
Stephens v Myers
Parish meeting. Defendant became violent moved towards
Thomas v National union of mine workers
The claimant was bussed to work during a strike held by the nation union of miners, as the
claimant passed the picket line, the strikers made threatening gestures. It was held there was
no assault as police protection and the exterior of the bus protected the claimant from
immediate fear, no immediate threat of harm.
Tuberville v savage
If it were not assize time I would not take such language from you no immediate threat
R v Ireland silent phones calls can amount to assault reasonable expectation of immediate
personal violence.

Battery
Intentional and direct application of unlawful force to another person
1 the least amount of touching can be battery
Three elements
1. Intent
2. Direct application
3. Force
Collins v Wilcock
No requirement of harm for a battery
Claimant police officer had cautioned defendant prostitute. When she walked away. The
police officer took hold of her arm. The def scratched the officers restraining arm. Defendant
argues police officer had committed a battery in holding her. The touch of her arm was a
trespass.
Gone beyond the scope of duty in detaining the woman police officer had committed a
battery. Goff LJ .

Wilson v Pringle
Hostile touching
In an act of ordinary horseplay the defendant pulled the claimants school bag off
his shoulder.
This caused the claimant to fall and suffer hip injury.
Court of appeal.
Croom-Johnson LJ the touching must be proved to be hostile touching.
Re F Lord Goff intentional physical contact not generally accepted in the
ordinary conduct of daily life
Letang v Cooper
The claimant was sunbathing in a hotel car park when the defendant drove in an
accidently drove over the claimants legs. Claim in negligence time barred.
Attempted to take a claim in trespass to the person
Lord Denning Court of Appeal

Lord Denningif it is intentional its a assault of battery.

If negligent and causing damage, it is tort of negligence and not trespass to the person.
Mutually exclusive- liability for one or the other.
Intentional battery
Unintentional- negligence
Collins v Wilcock
Wilson v pringle
Leetang v cooper- lord denning

Nash v sheen
An intention to hurt is not necessary
Dependant hair dresser was liable in battery when a tone rinse which
caused a rash was given to a claimant who requested a permanent
wave.
Re B v NHS

A competent adult may refuse medical treatment even if the likely

result will be death
Battery
Intentional and direct application of unlawful force
No need to cause harm- Nash v Sheen
The least amount of touching can be a battery- Collins v wilcock
Leetang v cooper lord denning
Hostile- Wilson v pringle croom- Johnston
Defences to Assault and Battery

1. Consent

Those who take part in sports also consent to a reasonable degree of physical
contact during the course of play, ie within the rules, even to the risk of being
unintentionally injured

The defence that the claimant consented to the injury or (more usually) to the
risk of being injured
Simms v Leigh Rugby Football Club
The defence that the claimant consented to the injury or the risk of being
injured.
R v Billinghurst- there can be no consent to deliberate acts of violence
Off ball incident claimant was deliberately punched in the face

2. Lawful arrest
Albert v Lavin
reasonable force by police officers or security guards to detain
you against your will. In order for their action to be lawful they would
have to show that you were causing or were about to cause a breach
of the peace, or provoking others to cause a breach of the peace
by your actions.

Collin v Wilcox- no all actions Lord Goff- not all actions by the police will
provide a defence.
3. Self Defence
Reasonable use of force to prevent a crime
a person may use reasonable force to defend himself, another person, or his property
from attack.
R v Williams(Gladstone) facts he honestly believed them to be

- if a defendant was labouring under a mistake of fact as to the circumstances when he

committed an alleged offence he was to be judged according to his mistaken view of the
facts regardless of whether his mistake was reasonable or unreasonable.

D saw a man assaulting a youth. The youth was calling for help. The man was in fact
affecting a lawful arrest of the youth, albeit falsely claiming to be a police officer. D
intervened

Held: D was not guilty of assault. He honestly believed that he was preventing an
unlawful assault. If the belief was in fact held, its unreasonableness is neither here nor
there. It is irrelevant.

4. Necessity
In Re F (above), a case concerning when medical treatment can be justified when
given without consent,
Lord Goff "not only (1) must there be a necessity to act when it is not practicable to
communicate with the assisted person, but also (2) the action taken must be such as a reasonable
person would in all circumstances take, acting in the best interests of the assisted person".

5. Provocation

Provocation, however, is not a defense available to the civil torts

of assault or battery

Lane v Holloway

This case involved a dispute between neighbours which became violent.

After a night at the pub, Mr. Lane, a retired gardener, returned home and was
talking outside as the disturbance broke out. He called Mrs. Holloway 'a monkey
faced tart', so Mr. Holloway felt the need to defend her honour. Mr. Lane threw a
light punch at the much younger Mr. Holloway, who punched Mr. Lane in the eye
so hard that it caused an injury requiring 19 stitches.
Although there were some precedents, Mr. Lane's provocation was not
considered to be relevant and could not be said to be contributory negligence
either.

False Imprisonment
Complete unlawful restraint of an individual by another

Intentional or unintentional
1. The restraint must be total/complete
Locking someone in a room
Blocking someones way so they have to use an alternative route is not
enough.
Bird v Jones
Plaintiff, attempting to pass in a particular direction, was obstructed by the defendant, who
prevented him from going in any particular direction but one, not being that in which he had
endeavoured to pass. Held, no imprisonment

2. The claimant need not no they were imprisoned

Murray v ministry of defence House of Lords

The claimants house was searched in her presence and she was arrested 30 minutes
later. It was unclear whether she was aware that she was not free to leave during the
period prior to her arrest.
Nominal damages- not aware and no harm.
3. Negligent conduct is not enough
Sayers v Harlow
Council negligent in maintaining the door handles led to a woman being trapped for a
short time . In order to escape she stood on the toilet and put her foot on the toilet role
holder which then spun causing her to fall 25% deduction from damages
contributory negligence.

False Imprisonment
Complete unlawful restraint of an individual by another
Intentional or unintentional
4. The restraint must be total/complete
Locking someone in a room
Blocking someones way so they have to use an alternative route is not
enough.
Bird v Jones
Plaintiff, attempting to pass in a particular direction, was obstructed by the defendant,
who prevented him from going in any particular direction but one, not being that in
which he had endeavoured to pass. Held, no imprisonment.

5. The claimant need not know they are imprisoned

Meering v Graham white Aviation
The fact that a person is not actually aware that he is being imprisoned does not
amount to evidence that he is not imprisoned
Meering was held in a room and questioned, because his employer though him to b a thief.
False imprisonment.
He got more money because he knew he was being kept there.
False imprisonment:
- if they know that they are held they get more money as if they were unaware
- they can sue even if they were drunk, unconscious, asleep.
Murray v ministry of defence House of Lords
The claimants house was searched in her presence and she was arrested 30 minutes
later. It was unclear whether she was aware that she was not free to leave during the
period prior to her arrest.
Nominal damages- not aware and no harm.

1. The restraint must be total/ complete- obstruction is not enough

Bird v Jones

2. The claimant need not know they were imprisoned

Murray v minster of defence (damages nominal no harm caused)
3. Negligent conduct is not enough
Sayers v Harlow
Sayers v. Harlow 1958 Urban District Council
D a local authority provided public toilets. When C tried to leave the cubicle, she found
the handle was missing. After trying for fifteen minutes to attract attention, she tried to
climb out by standing on the toilet roll holder, but the roll rotated and C slipped and fell,
injuring herself. No false imprisonment

4. The imprisonment must be unlawful

R v Brockhill prison.
False imprisonment defences.
Lawful arrest
Mental health legislation