Battery Actus Reus Ireland AR Application of unlawful

Battery Actus Reus - Ireland – AR = Application of unlawful physical force to another

Battery – Actus Reus • Ireland – AR = Application of unlawful physical force to another

Actus Reus – the Force can be slight E. g. hitting someone, throwing a drink at someone V does not need to suffer any pain or injury But, typical injuries are minor bruising, grazing, small cuts Collins v Willcock – “any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to battery” • E. g – slap, kiss, throwing a drink over someone • Thomas – touching clothes amounted to battery • Has to be an act not an omission: • • • – Fagan – can be a continuing act – applying unlawful force by driving on to police officer’s foot – by leaving the car there meant the unlawful force continued up until the time D had mens rea

Actus Reus - Unlawful Force • Some force may be lawful: • If victim consents to the force • Sports such as Rugby • Surgical procedures, visits to the dentist • Everyday physical contact • Implied consent in normal social situations – e. g. tapping someone on the shoulder • Collins v Willcock – all those who move about society have given implied consent to the physical contacts of ordinary life as they have exposed themselves to bodily contact – e. g. jostling in a supermarket/underground station, hand seized in friendship at a party (or even a back slap within reason) • But – if contact exceeds what is generally held to be acceptable (hand squeezed tightly at length until it hurts, repeatedly slapping someone on the back) force may be unlawful

Actus Reus – Indirect Batteries • Battery can be inflicted indirectly – D causes force to be applied even though he doesn’t touch the victim • DPP v K – battery can be indirect – schoolboy put acid in a hot air drier and another pupil was injured • Haystead – man punched a woman who dropped her baby – battery on the baby – D had used the woman as a weapon to injure the baby (n. b would also be liable under transferred malice)

Mens Rea • Venna – MR = Intent or subjective recklessness to apply force to another • D must intend or see the risk of unlawful force being applied to another • Don’t need any intent or recklessness as to harm – only the unlawful force • Latimer – transferred malice – D intentionally hit A with a belt, belt rebounded and hit B, D had MR for the attack on A which was transferred to B. Transferred malice only applies where MR and AR are for the same crime

Battery Questions 1. Was there force? What was it? 2. Was the force unlawful? 3. Did D intend or was he subjectively reckless to apply force?