Fagan v Commissioner Of Metropolitan Police

Court name : Middlesex Quarter Sessions

Date of the decision : October 25, 1967

Page number where the case appears in the textbook : Queens Bench Division Pg. no 440

Statement of facts

On August 31, 1967, Vincent Martel Fagan was driving a motor vehicle in Fortunegate Road, London,
N.W.10, near the junction with Craven Park Road, London, N.W.10. David Morris, a constable of the
Metropolitan Police force asked Mr. Fagan to pull over his car into the road against the north kerb so
that he could ask him for his documents related to his driving. He walked to a position and asked him
to park his vehicle in the exact position against the kerb but instead Mr. Fagan drove the vehicle in
Mr. Morris’s direction and stopped the vehicle with its front off-side wheel on his left foot. Mr.
Morris told him to get the vehicle away from his foot several times but Mr. Fagan did not bother
much and finally turned off the ignition and moved the vehicle off his foot. Due to this, Mr. Morris’s
toe was swollen and bruised because of which Mr. Fagan was charged of assault. There were no
reliefs that Mr.Morris requested for. Mr. Fagan’s lawyer tried to defend him on the basis of lack of
Mens rea at the time of Actus rea and lack of Actus rea when there was mens rea for the conviction
of an Assault.

Legal Issue

1. When Mr. Fagan drove his car over Mr. Morris’s foot without any intention and even after
repeatedly asking him to move his car away from his foot he deliberately took time to do it.
Can this be called an assault?
2. Assault and Battery are two different and individual crimes that are quite similar. Can the
crime in this case be treated as an assault involving a battery?

Judgement

There were three judges involved in the decision making. Lord Parker C.J. and James J had the same
opinion and believed that Mr. Fagan should be convicted for an assault but Bridge J was not in terms
with their decision. He was not in favour of Mr. Fagan but he believed that it was not a case of
assault. As he was convinced that it was the vehicle that went over Mr. Morris’s foot and the man
inside the driving seat had nothing to do with it. But at the end, the majority took over and Mr.
Fagar’s appeal was dismissed.

Reasons

1. When Mr. Fagan first mounted over Mr. Morris’s foot, he did not have any intention but
when was asked to move the vehicle from his foot he did not do it quickly and instead
waited intentionally. This gives the mens rea to the already existing actus rea. Hence an
assault. There has to be mens rea and actus rea for it to be an assault.
2. Battery is the use of unlawful force over another person without his consent. So Mr. Fagan
used his car to mount over Mr. Morris’s foot with out his consent. Hence it’s a continuous
assault involving battery.