What was the decision in haystead binding?
Decision / Outcome The Court stipulated that the only difference between the man’s actions causing the baby to fall from his mother’s hands and his punching of the baby directly is that, in the present case, the charge is of reckless and not intentional battery.
What happened in RV Thomas?
R v Thomas (1985) Facts: The defendant, a school caretaker, assaulted a 12-year-old after taking hold of the hem of her skirt. Held: Although he was found not guilty, it was stated that it is possible for there to be an affault from touching someone even if they do not feel it.
What is hostile touching?
there must be an intentional touching or contact in one form or another of the [claimant] by the defendant. That touching must be proved to be a hostile touching … Hostility cannot be equated with ill-will or malevolence. It cannot be governed by the obvious intention shown in acts like punching, stabbing or shooting.
Is spitting common assault?
In most cases, spitting at a person deliberately will constitute an offence of assault. An exception to this may be where someone intended to spit at a person, but missed and spat at another person nearby. Despite not being intentional, this may be considered to be a reckless act and the offence may still be committed.
Is hostility required for battery?
“any intentional [or reckless] touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. It need not necessarily be hostile, rude, or aggressive.”
What happened in the case of Roberts 1971?
After a party the male defendant R, gave the female victim a lift in his automobile. The defendant was charged with sexual assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was convicted at trial of assault occasioning actual bodily harm but acquitted of sexual assault.
What happened in Wilson v Pringle?
The plaintiff said it was a battery. Held: The defendant’s appeal against summary judgment was allowed. A claim of trespass to the person amounting to a battery was established by showing an intentional touching of the plaintiff and that the touching was hostile.