## 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.


Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172