Tresspass to the Person

• What is Tresspass to the person?

  entails actions that directly inflict harm on an individual and can be legally pursued without requiring evidence of damage
• Tresspass to the person


  • Must be carried out intentionally
  • Must result in immediate harm
• 3 main forms of tresspass to the person under common law

  • Assault
  • Battery
  • False Imprisonment
• Assault


  An action that leads another individual to anticipate the imminent infliction of immediate unlawful force against his person
• What is Assault?

  
  

  Goff LJ, Collins v Wilock defines Assault as : an action that leads another individual to anticipate the imminent infliction of immediate unlawful force against his person'
• What does the definition Assault mean?

  • The victim perceives a reasonable anticipation of the threat, even if the force is not ultimately applied
• What constitute an Actionable assault

  • D intends that C apprehends (fears) the application of unlawful force
  • C reasonably apprehends the immediate and direct application of unlawful force
  • D has no lawful justification or excuse for their actions
• 1. Reasonable Apprehension


  For there to be an assault, C must reasonably foresee, anticipate or expect battery
• Test for reasonable apprehension

  • Objective
• 1. Reasonable Apprenhension

  Stephens v Myers


  • C attempted to remove D from a parish meeting due to disruptive behaviour. D threatened C with violence, approaching C with a clenched fist. The court concluded that C's apprehension of battery was reasonable, thus holding D accountable for assault.
• 1. Reasonable Apprehension

  R v St George


  • D aimed an unloaded gun at C. Since C had no means of determining whether the gun was loaded, C feared violence, meeting the threshold for assault.
• 2. There must be a threat of the infliction of immediate and direct force

  • D must have the capability to install immediate fear and apply direct force where C is within close proximity for D to execute or inflict
• 2. There must be a threat of the infliction of immediate and direct force

  
  

  Thomas v National Union


  • During a strike, workers verbally harrased colleagues who continued working. Despite facing an aggressive picket line making violent gestures and threats, the working collegues were transported to work by bus, protected from the direct contact.
• Court decision in Thomas v National Union

  The Court, applying an objective standard, ruled that assault was not proven. The colleagues remained safe from harm while being driven to work, as the picketers were restrained behind a police cordon. Consequently, the actions of the striking workers did not meet the necessary criteria for asssault in temrs of immediacy and direct.
• Threatning Gestures can be negated by words :

  • Tuberville v Savage : D placed his hand on his sword and remarked to C, ‘ if it were not for assize time, i would not tolerate such language from you’. The court acknowleged that the gesture alone could have constituted assault if not for the statement indicating D’s intention not to harm, particularly due to the presence of judges in town.

  
  

  • D’s words did not indicate an imminent attack but rather suggested a future possibility. Assault requires an immediate apphrension of battery.
• Can words alone amount to assault?

  • The law originally held that words alone cannot amount to an assault
  • R v Meades & Belt : D’s surrounded v’s house while singing threatning and menacing songs. No assault was deemed to have occured, as there mere use of words was insufficent to constitute assault; there needed to be some accompanying intimidating physical gesture.
• Can words alone amount to assault?

  CONTRAST : This principle was not consistentely upheld

  • R v Wilson : D threatened and kicked a gatekeeper shouting, ‘get out the knives!’ when the gatekeeper atempted to arrest him for poaching. Lord Goddard remarked obiter that words such as those were capable of consituting assault on their own even without any accompanying physical act.
• Can silence alone amount to assault?

  • R v Ireland : D made series of silent phone calls to 3 different women, leading to their psychological distress. the court ruled that silence can consitute assault if c’s reasonably believe that the implied threat could be executed in the near future, qualifying as an immediate threat of personal violence.
• What is battery?

  Battery is described as the intentional application of unlawful force to another person
• what constitute battery?

  Actionable battery requires :

  • The intentional application of unlawful force (Physical contact)
  • which occured directly and immediately; and
  • for which D has lacks lawful justification or excuse (without defence)
• Intentional Application

  The tort of battery requires either :

  • An intention (setting out) to apply force to another person; or
  • recklessness as to (foresseing the likelihood of) one’s actions causing the application of force to another person
• Intentional Application

  There are 2 additional points to make :

  1. The Principle of Transferred Intent

  Livingstone v Ministry of Defence : Individual (C) sustained injuries when a soldier fired a baton round during a riot. although the round was intentionally discharged, it was not aimed at C. Despite this, the claim encompassed a claim of negligence, assault and battery. 
• Intentional Application

  
  

  2. Even when the harm inflicted is unintended by D, they remain liable for compensating C for the unlawful touching (physical contact)

  
  

  Williams v Humphrey : D playfully pushed C into a swimming pool, resulting in C falling awakardly and fracturing his ankle. D contended that there was no intention to cause harm to C. However, this arguement was deemed inconsequential as D had clearly intended to touch C. In such instances, there is no additional requirement for D to intend any subsequent injury.
• Intentional Application :

  
  

  Where D has not even considered the possibility of causing harm to C, he is still liable. (Initial action was involuntary)

  
  

  Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commisioner : C, a police officer was directing D on where to park. However, D accidently drove his car onto C’s foot. Despite being aware of the situation, D intentionally left his car on C’s foot for a period, resulting in injury to C’s foot. the magistrates were unable to determine whether the intial act of parking on C’s foot was deliberate, but concurred that leaving the car on C’s foot has been deliberate.
• Intentional Application

  1. Of Unlawful Force : Force must be unlawful but not need to be Hostile

  Cole v turner, Lord Holt CJ : attempted to delineate between actionable batteries and common social interactions by asserting that even

  • ‘the least touching of another in anger is battery’
• Intentional Application :

  Of Unlawful Force : Force must be unlawful but not need to be Hostile 

  • courts have further elaborated that for an actionable battery to occur, there must be a “hostile intent”

  Wilson v Pringles : C suffered serious hip injuries when D, a fellow pupul pulled C’s school bag off his shoulder in a playful manner. the court deemd this to be a battery due to the intentional hostile nature of the physcal contact. intent was construed in relation to the act of touching, and if done with hostility it consttituted battery.
• Intentional Application :

  
  

  what case can you contrast Wilson v Pringles with?

  F v West Berkshire Health Authority
• Intetional Application :

  
  

  what happened in F v West Berkshire Health Authority?

  
  

  Lord Goff questioned whether hostile touching alone was a sufficent definition.

  instead, he defined battery as the

  • ‘delibreate touching of another’s body beyond the bounds of acceptable everyday conduct in the absence of lawful excuse

  Goff underlines a general exeception embracing all physical contact which is generally accetable of everyday life.
• 2. Direct and Immediate Force

  Refers to the requirement that any unlawful touching much be the immdeidate and direct consequence of D’s action. 
• what does direct mean?

  The term ‘direct’ is interpreted flexibilty by the courts, primarily focusing on causation. 
• Direct and Immediate force

  
  

  Scotts v Shephered : D threw a lit firework onto a busy marketplace . Despite 2 other people intervened by throwing the firework away, it ultimately exploded in C’s face causing him to lose the use of his eye.

  Court Decision :

  • Court held that D was fully liable because there was no break in the chain of causation between his action and C’s injury.
• Direct and Immediate Force

  
  

  DPP v K : School boy was found liable for injuries caused to another pupil as a result of pouring sulfuric acid into a hand dryer, which subsequently blew onto C’s face, leaving a permanent scar.

  Here the direct and immediate consequence of D’s action resulted in harm to C.