battery

• Definition of a Battery

  Case - R v Gladstone Williams

  An act by which the defendant, intentionally or recklessly, applies unlawful force to the complainent.

  This was confirmed in R v Ireland.
• Actus reus of a battery


  • An act or omission
  • Application
  • Unlawful
  • (Physical) force
• Actus reus - an act (continuing act)


  The actus reus of a battery can be committed by either an act or an omission.

  With regards to an act, this can be committed across a series of events (i.e., a continuing act)

  Case - Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
• Actus reus - An act (Indirect act)


  This act can also be indirect. This is where the defendant creates a situation that causes force to be applied, however, the defendant themselves may not be personally touching the victim (e.g., booby trap).

  Case - R v Martin
• Actus reus - Or an omission


  Where a battery has happened because of an omission (failure to act e.g. a small fire occurs and the D doesn't take any duty to extinguish it), this is only because there has been a duty to act.
• Actus reus - Application of unlawful force


  The level of force which needs to be applied does not have to be extreme. It can include the slightest of touching.

  Case - Collins v Wilcock
• Actus reus - Unlawful force


  Fear of any unwanted touching is sufficient, and the force feared need not be serious.

  The force feared however does need to be unlawful.

  It is not unlawful if the victim gives consent (e.g. in sports) or in self-defence.

  Force is seen as lawful regarding the correction of a child's behaviour by a parent.
• Mens rea - Intention or Recklessness


  For a battery, there needs to be either an intention to apply unlawful physical force to another or be reckless as to whether unlawful force is applied (the defendant must realise a risk that their act or omission could cause unlawful force to be applied).

  If the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated whilst doing the prohibited conduct, this is seen in the law as committing the offence recklessly.

  Case - DPP v Majewski
• Mens rea - Intention or Recklessness


  • Direct intention - this is where our defendant's main aim/purpose matches the desired consequence - R v Mohan
  • Oblique intention - This is where the defendant's main aim/purpose does not match the consequences. Therefore, we need to test whether 1) the consequence was virtually certain 2) whether the defendant foresaw that consequence - R v Woollin
  • Subjective recklessness - This is where the defendant knows there is a risk but chooses to take that risk anyway - R v Cunningham