100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Tort Law: Trespass - Assault & Battery £5.49
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. The University Of Birmingham (UBir)
  4.  
  5. The University Of Birmingham
  6.  
  7. Law Of Tort

Lecture notes

Tort Law: Trespass - Assault & Battery
 0 purchase

This document contains all the necessary lecture and textbook notes for the topic of Assault and Battery. Covers the requirements of Assault and Battery, while supplementing with case law.

Preview 2 out of 6  pages

Document information

  • June 14, 2021
  • 6
  • 2020/2021
  • Lecture notes
  • Samantha schnobel
  • All classes

Subjects

Connected book

book image

Book Title:

Author(s):

  • Edition:
  • ISBN:
  • Edition:

More summaries for

All for this textbook (6)

Written for

All documents for this subject (5)

Seller

avatar-seller
rueakbar

Reviews received

Content preview

Intentional Torts: ‘Trespass to the Person’
Introduction
Outline of this Topic of ‘Actionable Harm’: Wrongs to the Person
1. Introduction
2. Trespass to the Person = this is the umbrella tort.
• Battery
• Assault
• False Imprisonment
3. Defences
4. The rule in Wilkinson v Downton
5. Protection from Harassment Act 1997 = we will study the civil wrongs created under this Act.


Key Concepts of these Torts:
• Tort and Crime are different things.
o Lord Carswell in Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex [2008] UKHL 25 at [76]:
“[There] is a clear difference between the aims of the two branches of the law. The criminal law has moved in
recent years in the direction of emphasising individual responsibility...
The function of the civil law is quite distinct. It is to provide a framework for compensation for wrongs which holds
the balance fairly between the conflicting rights and interests of different people.”
• The general rule:
o Do not cite crime cases in Tort, or Tort cases in crime.
o EXCEPT where there is overlap (such as if the case is
on a Tort lecture handout).

• Concurrent Liability:
o A. Burrows (ed), English Private Law, 2nd ed (2008),
para 17.246, endorsed by Lord Rodger of Earlsferry in
Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] UKHL
25 at [56].
“English law has no objection to concurrent liability …
between one wrong and another”.
o In other words, a claimant can bring forwards as many
claims in tort from the same defendant if they want.



Trespass to the person:
• Goff LJ in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 at 377-8:
“An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his
person; a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person. … false imprisonment … is the
unlawful imposition of constraint on another's freedom of movement from a particular place.”
o Assault = C ‘apprehended’ (thought something would happen) ‘immediate, unlawful, force’ (force does not
have to include a forceful act, it can just be a touching act). I.e. making someone think you are about to touch
them, but it doesn’t actually happen.
o Battery = the same thing as assault, but the touching does happen.

‘Intentional Torts’:
• The torts which we are examining are “intentional” torts.
• This requires deliberate conduct.
• In trespass to the person, it does not mean that the defendant needs to intend to commit a tort:
o Wilson v Pringle [1987] 1 QB 237 at 249
“It is the act and not the injury which must be intentional. An intention to injure is not essential to an action for
trespass to the person. It is the mere trespass by itself which is the offence.”


States of Mind:
• Recklessness and carelessness are only needed for negligence torts.
• In ‘Trespass to Person’ torts, intention is required, not the lower 2 states of mind.

, Assault and Battery: What is the purpose of these Torts?
• Both Assault and Battery protect aspects of our personal integrity.
1. Battery protects our bodily integrity.
2. Assault protects the right not to be put in fear of unlawful invasion of our integrity.

Key Case: Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374
• Facts: A female police officer approached 2 females on the street believing them to be prostitutes. One woman
walked away while swearing at the officer. The officer takes hold of the women’s arm; however she wasn’t under
arrest.
• Issue: Was the officers action of holding the woman’s arm to restrain her and stop her moving, battery?
• Held: The CoA held the officers’ actions did amount as battery. The police have special powers of arrest, but
where those powers are not being applied, the law applies equally to the police.
o Robert Goff LJ at 378:
“The fundamental principle, plain and incontestable, is that every person's body is inviolate.
… every man's person being sacred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest
manner…The effect is that everybody is protected not only against physical injury but against any form of physical
molestation.”

Key Case: Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex [2008] UKHL 25
• Facts: Mr Ashley was shot by police and killed; the police had planned to raid his home for an investigation. They
had been warned beforehand that he had been involved in firearm offences and armed robbery. The raid occurred
at night, so it was dark in the apartment. One officer saw him, he was moving quickly towards the officer who
fearing for his life, shot him, fatally injuring him.
• Issue: The officer was initially accused of murder, but was later acquitted. The family of Ashley brought forwards a
number of torts against the police, including; assault, battery, false imp, negligence and misfeasance. The police
accepted they were liable for negligence and false imp, but refused liability for battery. The family still sought
battery in the civil courts despite them not being able to recover anymore compensation as they wanted a
declaration that the police had acted unlawfully to vindicate Ashley.
• Held: The courts had to decide whether the claim for assault and battery should be allowed to continue given that
no further compensation was available and the defences available (self-defence).
o Lord Rodger at [60]:
“A claimant has no cause of action in negligence unless he has suffered injury or damage. By contrast, battery or
trespass to the person is actionable without proof that the victim has suffered anything other than the infringement
of his right to bodily integrity: the law vindicates that right by awarding nominal damages.”
o The claim was allowed, and nominal damages are awarded in cases where no compensation can be given,
where the family are only seeking vindication that the police had acted wrongly.
o A claim for vindicatory damages did survive the deceased under the 1934 Act. Lord Scott said:
‘Although the principal aim of an award of compensatory damages is to compensate the claimant for loss suffered,
there is no reason in principle why an award of compensatory damages should not also fulfil a vindicatory
purpose. But it is difficult to see how compensatory damages can could ever fulfil a vindicatory purpose in a case
of alleged assault where liability for the assault were denied and a trial of that issue never took place.’




Battery
Battery: Requirements
1) Application of direct and immediate force.
2) Intention on the part of the defendant = an intention (setting out) to apply force to another person; or recklessness
as to (foreseeing the likelihood of) one’s actions causing the application of force to another person.
3) The application must be unlawful.

• Lord Hoffman in Wainwright v Home Office [2003] at [67] = The essence of the wrong is the “invasion of the
physical person of the [claimant]”
• Tort Law, Horsey and Rackley, Ch 15, Pg. 414 = “There is no need to show that the D caused the C actual harm
or injury by touching them, or indeed that they intended to cause them harm or injury. As such any unwanted
physical touching …can amount to battery …nor does it matter why the touching occurred”
• Colins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 at 1177= the force must exceed “physical contact which is generally
acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life”.


Key Case: Direct and Immediate Force
Scott v Shepherd (1773) 2 Wm. B1.892, 96 Eng Rep. 525

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller rueakbar. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £5.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

68175 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now

Start selling
£5.49
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added