Crime XXXXXXXXXIV – Battery VI
Police
officers are allowed to make contact with others in the course of their duty
and not all physical contact made by a police officer will amount to battery.
In Donnelly v Jackman (1970) a police officer tapped the defendant on the
shoulder to bring his attention to something and the defendant turned around
and assaulted the police officer.
The
defendant was charged with assaulting a police officer in the course of his
duty and the defendant countered by alleging that the police officer’s actions
amounted to battery. The court decided that the police officer’s actions did
not amount to battery.
Some
leeway must be given to police officers to enable them to do their job or to
carry out their duties effectively. That scope however is quite narrow.
3.
Physical force or the application of physical force.
In
order to be convicted for battery the defendant must have applied some sort of
physical force that is unreasonable under the circumstances and does not fall
under the scope of acceptable codes of conduct. That physical force however
need not be severe and mere touching could amount to battery.
In
Faulkner v Talbot (1981) it was held that battery includes the intentional or
reckless touching of someone without the consent of that person or without
lawful excuse and the act need not be hostile.
The
decision in Faulkner v Talbot (1981) however must be compared with the decision
in Wilson v Pringle (1986) when one schoolboy sued another for injuries
sustained while fooling around in the school corridor. It was decided that in
order for the actions of the defendant to amount to battery the act must be
hostile.
In
short it would be safe to say, as per Collins v Wilcock (1984), that what
amounts to battery or otherwise depends on the facts of each case.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment