Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Trespass to the Person (Battery (Direct and intentional application of…

- - - - Cannot be an omission (Innes v Wylie)
        
        Consider Fagan v MPC
      - Can be extended period between act and injury (DPP v K)
    - - Includes subjective recklessness (Iqbal v Prison Officers Association)
      - Intend the contact, not harm (Wilson v Pringle)
      - Doctrine of transferred malice applies (Livingstone v MoD)
    - - Slightest touch (Cole v Turner)
      - Cutting hair (Nash v Sheen)
      - Spitting (R v Cotesworth)
    - - Interpreted as lack of consent for medical/sport context (F v West Berkshire HA)
    - - Defences
        
        Consent
        
        Express
        
        Must be aware of nature and purpose of act (Chatterton v Gerson)
        
        Implied (Collins v Wilcock)
        
        Self-defence
        
        Use of reasonable force in protection of themselves or another, or property (Lane v Holloway)
        
        Force must be proportionate (Cockroft v Smith)
        
        Necessity (Re A (Children (Conjoined Twins)))
        
        Statutory Authority
        
        e.g. s 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1987
        
        Percy v Hall
        
        Reasonable Chastisement
        
        Consider duration, age and effect on child (R v H)
- - - - Not omission
      - Words sufficient (R v Wilson; Tuberville v Savage)
      - Silence sufficient (R v Ireland)
    - - Apprehension must be reasonable (Stephens v Myers c.f. Thomas v NUM)
        
        Actual potential for battery taken into account when considering if reasonable
    - - Defences
        
        Consent
        
        Express
        
        Must be aware of nature and purpose of act (Chatterton v Gerson)
        
        Implied (Collins v Wilcock)
        
        Self-defence
        
        Use of reasonable force in protection of themselves or another, or property (Lane v Holloway)
        
        Force must be proportionate (Cockroft v Smith)
        
        Necessity (Re A (Children (Conjoined Twins)))
        
        Statutory Authority
        
        e.g. s 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1987
        
        Percy v Hall
        
        Reasonable Chastisement
        
        Consider duration, age and effect on child (R v H)
- - - - Intention to restrain (R v Governor of Brockhill Prison ex p Evans
        
        Subjective recklessness will suffice (Iqbal v Prison Officers Association)
    - - In all direction. No alternative route (Bird v Jones)
      - Do not need to be mentally aware of restriction (Meering v Graham-White Aviation; Murray v MoD)
      - No need for force, threat sufficient (Davidson v CC of North Wales)
    - - Breach of contractual obligation can justify (Robinson v Balmain New Ferry; Herd v Weardale Steel)
- - - - Recklessness not sufficient (Rhodes v OPO)