Battery it is purposely touching or applying force on other persons or things related to the person

without his/her consent with the intention to harm the person. It is considered when there is an actual
physical contact without the consent of the person to harm the person. Generally, assault is followed by
battery which is the reason assault and battery are mostly used together. Battery must be direct and
have contact. It can be a single unlawful contact and no damage needed can be harmless contact.

As well as bodily integrity, the tort of battery protects the claimant`s dignity. An action can be brought
where there is indignity without suffering physical injury but where the claimant`s rights have been
infringed. An example of such an indignity could b e unlawfully taking a person`s fingerprints or
wrongfully seizing a person`s arm to detain him in a shop on suspicion of shoplifting. In these cases, the
claimant may only want to establish a principle, rather than seek compensation and because of this they
sue in trespass rather than negligence. Trespass as we have been seen, is actionable per se but in oder to
succeed in negligence the claimant must show that the damage or harm has been suffered.

The following acts must be established,

1. Direct and intentional voluntary act by a person: Defendants act must directly cause contact with
plaintiff. Need not to intend to harm.
2. Causes physical bodily contact; Intentionally bringing about unwanted physical contact with
another. Must be offensive and need not to be hostile. However slight might amount to battery.

In the case of Livingstone v Ministry of Defence (1984);

The defendant soldier in Northern Ireland intended to hit someone other than the victim when he fired
a baton round. However, because his actions in firing the baton was intentional, even though he was
aiming at a rioter when he fired, the soldier was found liable in battery when he missed his target and
struck the plaintiff.

In the case of Wilson v Pringle (1987);

A 13-year old schoolboy, admitted that as an act of ordinary horseplay in a school corridor he pulled the
plaintiff`s schoolbag from his shoulder. This caused the plaintiff to fall and suffer a hip injury and he
applied for a summary judgement on the ground that the defendant`s admission of horseplay amounted
to a clear case of battery to which there was no defence. The trial judge accepted this view and granted
summary judgement. The defendants appealed against this decision to the court of appeal which held
the trial judge had been wrong to grant summary judgement as the admitted facts did not automatically
amount to battery. In 1990, Lord Goff defined battery as any intentional physical contact which was not
generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and he doubted whether it is correct to say that
the touching must be hostile for the purpose of battery.

In the case of Collins v Wilcock (1984);

A woman police tried to question a woman whom she suspected of soliciting contrary to the Street
Offences Act 1959. When she took hold of the woman`s arm in order to detain her and administer a
caution the woman scratched the police officer`s arm. On appeal against her conviction for assaulting a
police officer in the execution of her duty, the question to be decided was weather the police officer had
gone beyond the scope of her duty in detaining the woman amounted to a battery. You should note that
a distinction is made between a restraint in these circumstances and a touching to attract a person`s
attention or in the ordinary conduct incidental in everyday life. The intention required in battery is that
the defendant must have intended to commit the act that constitutes the trespass.