A definition of assault can be found in Collins v Wilcock . The court stated that assault is an 'act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person.' In Collins v Wilcock , a policewoman took hold of Collins' arm to stop her walking off when she was questioning her. Collins scratched the policewoman and was charged with assaulting a police officer in the course of her duty. It was held that the policewoman's actions formed a battery. Collins acted in self-defense and her conviction was quashed.
No words or singing are equivalent to an assault. This meant that, generally, threatening words have to be accompanied by a gesture to amount to battery, as shown in the case of Read v Coker .
To constitute …show more content…
The claimant only has to prove that it was reasonable for the claimant to expect that harm was going to occur. The claimant does not have to prove that they were actually afraid of immediate harm. The test for reasonable fear of an immediate battery is an objective one, so it is irrelevant that the particular claimant was actually in fear or could have defended themselves successfully. In Stephens v Myers the claimant was the chairman of a meeting where the defendant was to be expelled. They were sitting about six or seven places from each other. The defendant became angry and made a move towards the claimant, saying that he would rather pull him out of the chair than be ejected from the meeting. His attempt to do this was prevented by another person. As the claimant and the defendant were close enough to each other, the threat was said to be enough to put the claimant in reasonable fear of an immediate battery. The judgment held: 'It is not every threat, when there is no actual violence that constitutes assault; there must, in all cases, be the means of carrying that threat into …show more content…
A battery involves intentionally bringing about a harmful or offensive interference with another person without consent. There is a definition in Collins v Wilcock that states that a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person. Lord Denning held in the case of Letang v Cooper 'where the act causing the damage was intentional, the correct cause of action was trespass to the person. Where the act was negligent, the cause of action was in negligence. There was no overlap between trespass to the person and negligence.'
A defendant must have acted intentionally, and the act of force must be voluntary in nature. If it can be proved that the defendant's intention was to commit a trespass to the person, then there will be liability. If there is any non-intentional contact, the claim for harm must be in negligence. This was confirmed in the case of Iqbal v Prison Officers Association . In the case
No words or singing are equivalent to an assault. This meant that, generally, threatening words have to be accompanied by a gesture to amount to battery, as shown in the case of Read v Coker .
To constitute …show more content…
The claimant only has to prove that it was reasonable for the claimant to expect that harm was going to occur. The claimant does not have to prove that they were actually afraid of immediate harm. The test for reasonable fear of an immediate battery is an objective one, so it is irrelevant that the particular claimant was actually in fear or could have defended themselves successfully. In Stephens v Myers the claimant was the chairman of a meeting where the defendant was to be expelled. They were sitting about six or seven places from each other. The defendant became angry and made a move towards the claimant, saying that he would rather pull him out of the chair than be ejected from the meeting. His attempt to do this was prevented by another person. As the claimant and the defendant were close enough to each other, the threat was said to be enough to put the claimant in reasonable fear of an immediate battery. The judgment held: 'It is not every threat, when there is no actual violence that constitutes assault; there must, in all cases, be the means of carrying that threat into …show more content…
A battery involves intentionally bringing about a harmful or offensive interference with another person without consent. There is a definition in Collins v Wilcock that states that a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person. Lord Denning held in the case of Letang v Cooper 'where the act causing the damage was intentional, the correct cause of action was trespass to the person. Where the act was negligent, the cause of action was in negligence. There was no overlap between trespass to the person and negligence.'
A defendant must have acted intentionally, and the act of force must be voluntary in nature. If it can be proved that the defendant's intention was to commit a trespass to the person, then there will be liability. If there is any non-intentional contact, the claim for harm must be in negligence. This was confirmed in the case of Iqbal v Prison Officers Association . In the case