Assault and Battery CASES
In English law, assault and battery are distinct but related concepts in both tort and criminal law. Assault involves causing another to apprehend immediate unlawful force, while battery involves the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person.
Definition and Principles
Assault protects individuals against threats of violence, whereas battery safeguards against unwanted physical interference. Neither requires serious harm; the key is the unlawful nature of the act and the absence of consent or lawful justification.
Requirements for Establishing
- Assault: An act causing the claimant or victim to reasonably apprehend imminent unlawful force (e.g. raising a fist to strike).
- Battery: The intentional and direct application of unlawful force, however slight (e.g. unwanted touching).
- Mens rea: Intention or recklessness as to causing apprehension (assault) or applying force (battery).
- Defences: Consent, self-defence, or lawful authority may justify the act.
Practical Applications
In tort, claimants may sue for damages or seek injunctions. In criminal law, common assault and battery are offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.39, punishable by imprisonment or fines. Key cases include Collins v Wilcock (1984), which defined everyday social contact as outside battery, and R v Ireland (1997), confirming that silent phone calls can amount to assault.
Importance
Assault and battery are foundational concepts in English law, protecting personal security and autonomy. They exemplify the balance between individual rights and permissible conduct in both civil and criminal contexts.
Home » Assault and Battery
An elderly man insulted a younger man's wife and threw a minor punch. The younger man retaliated with a severe punch, causing serious injury. The Court of Appeal held that provocation is not a defence to battery and cannot reduce compensatory damages. Facts The plaintiff, Mr Lane, was a 78-year-old man. The defendant, Mr Holloway, was a 23-year-old. After an argument between their wives, the plaintiff insulted the defendant’s wife. Words were exchanged between the two men, and the plaintiff, believing he was about to be struck, punched the defendant on the shoulder. In response, the defendant struck the plaintiff
A hunt saboteur, Mr Cross, was injured when a farmer, Mr Kirkby, struck him with a baseball bat during a confrontation. Mr Kirkby claimed self-defence. The court found Kirkby's actions were not grossly disproportionate, allowing the defence and clarifying principles of self-defence. Facts The claimant, Mr Cross, was a hunt saboteur who, with others, was attempting to disrupt the Longstone Edge Hunt. The defendant, Mr Kirkby, was a farmer and a member of the hunt staff. The saboteurs trespassed onto Mr Kirkby’s land. Mr Kirkby, holding a baseball bat, confronted Mr Cross and a fellow saboteur. An altercation ensued in
Following the fatal police shooting of James Ashley, his family pursued a civil claim for assault and battery, despite the police admitting negligence. The court ruled it was not an abuse of process to seek a verdict on the battery claim for vindication. Facts On 15 January 1998, during a police raid on his flat, Mr James Ashley was shot and killed by a police constable (‘PC Sherwood’). At the time, Mr Ashley was naked and unarmed. Mr Ashley’s father and son (‘the claimants’) brought a civil action against the Chief Constable of Sussex Police (‘the defendant’) for damages. The
