Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172

Facts

  • Collins v Wilcock concerned an incident where two police officers approached two women suspected of soliciting for prostitution.
  • When one woman refused to cooperate and began walking away, a policewoman physically restrained her by holding her arm.
  • The woman scratched the officer in response and was charged with assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty.
  • The main question was whether the policewoman lawfully detained the appellant in the absence of an arrest power.
  • The case examined acceptable physical contact by police officers and in ordinary social interactions.

Issues

  1. Whether the policewoman’s physical restraint of the appellant, absent a power of arrest or statutory authority, constituted unlawful battery.
  2. What constitutes battery in the context of intent, hostility, and implied social consent.
  3. How the boundaries between assault and battery are defined and distinguished.
  4. What defences are recognized against liability for battery.

Decision

  • The court found that the policewoman’s act of holding the appellant’s arm, in absence of lawful arrest, exceeded the boundaries of permissible physical contact and amounted to battery.
  • The court clarified that police officers do not have greater rights than ordinary citizens regarding physical restraint unless operating under a lawful arrest or specific statutory power.
  • The judgment distinguished between hostile and non-hostile contact, emphasizing that ordinary social touchings are not battery due to implied consent.
  • The defence of lawful arrest was not available as the officer was not effecting a lawful arrest at the time of contact.

Legal Principles

  • Battery is defined as the intentional application of unlawful physical force; intentionality and unlawfulness are necessary elements.
  • Not all physical contact amounts to battery; implied consent exists for generally acceptable contact in daily life.
  • Police officers are subject to the same limitations as citizens in using physical force unless they have lawful grounds for arrest.
  • The distinction between assault (apprehension of immediate force) and battery (actual unlawful force) is essential; both are separate torts.
  • Defences to battery include consent (explicit or implied), lawful arrest, and self-defence, as clarified by relevant case law.
  • Implied consent operates to exclude liability for everyday social touchings; unlawful or excessive force, even by police, is actionable.

Conclusion

Collins v Wilcock established important boundaries for lawful physical contact, reaffirmed implied consent as part of everyday interactions, and set limitations on police use of force absent lawful authority, shaping the law on battery and assault.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal