Battery Essay Model Answer

• Prima facie, the defendant (state name), is likely to be convicted of the common law offence of battery which is a summary offence tried in the Magistrates Court and punished under s.39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for (state what happened). Battery is defined as 'intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force.' (Venna/Ireland/Collins v Wilcock)
• The actus reus (guilty act) of battery is the application of unlawful force on another (Collins v Wilcock) which can be committed by a positive, voluntary act or omission (failure to act). It will be deemed unlawful if it is not in self-defence, there is no consent (permission), and it was not in the 'ordinary jostling of everyday life' so no implied consent either (Wilson v Pringle).
• The force used can be slight and doesn't need to cause injury (Collins v Wilcock). A battery can be committed either directly, where there is actual contact from the D to the V, in R v Thomas even touching clothing can amount to this, or indirectly. The case of DPP v K/R v Haystead demonstrates that the force used can be indirect, meaning it doesn't have to come directly from the defendant's hands.
• As battery is a result crime, causation must be proven. Factual causation will be established using the 'but for' test and the defendant's actions applied unlawful force (R v White).
• Legal causation must also be proven. The defendant will be de minimis (R v Kimsey) if they are more than a minimal cause and the operating and substantial cause if they are the most to blame (R v Smith).
• Check for any new intervening acts:

  1. Victims own actions - reasonable, foreseeable, not daft = no break (Roberts)
  2. Victims self-neglect - chooses not to go hospital, goes against hospital advice (Holland) or commits suicide (Wallace) = no break
  3. Actions of a 3rd party - reasonable, foreseeable = no break (Pagett)
  4. Palpably wrong medical treatment - palpably wrong if it is so independent of the defendant's actions (break = Jordan ), (no break = Smith)
  5. Thin skull rule - take the victim as they find them (Blaue)
• The mens rea (guilty mind) for battery is intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force. Intention is where the defendant has the aim, purpose and desire to bring about the prohibited consequence (R v Mohan). Subjective recklessness is where the defendant foresees a risk and proceeds to take it anyway (R v Cunningham).
• On that basis, the defendant does/does not have the AR and MR of battery and would be guilty subject to any defence. If convicted, he could face up to a maximum of 6 months in prison, £5000 fine or both.