Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172 (Div Ct)

Facts

• PC Wilcock, a police officer, attempted to speak with Ms. Collins, who was suspected of involvement in prostitution.
• When Ms. Collins walked away, PC Wilcock took hold of her arm to stop her, though not in the course of making an arrest.
• Ms. Collins responded by scratching the officer’s arm.
• Ms. Collins was subsequently charged for assaulting an officer while performing police duty.

Issues

1. Whether PC Wilcock’s physical contact with Ms. Collins constituted battery given the lack of lawful grounds for arrest.
2. Whether Ms. Collins’ response could be considered lawful self-defence.
3. How implied consent to physical contact operates in daily life and its limits in distinguishing lawful and unlawful touching.

Decision

• The Divisional Court quashed Ms. Collins’s conviction, finding that PC Wilcock committed battery by holding Ms. Collins’s arm without proper authority.
• The court held that Ms. Collins’s reaction amounted to lawful self-defence.
• It was affirmed that ordinary physical contact in daily life is covered by implied consent, but actions exceeding those limits are unlawful.

Legal Principles

• Implied consent exists for minor physical contact in daily life (e.g., bumping, handshakes, tapping on the shoulder) and does not constitute battery.
• Physical contact that goes beyond the boundaries of ordinary social interaction, and lacks legal justification, may amount to battery.
• The distinction between everyday contact (lawful) and harmful, unwanted touching (potentially battery) hinges on context and consent.
• The ruling clarifies rights to personal autonomy and the limits of police conduct during public interactions.
• The principles from this case have shaped later case law, including the assessment of hostile intent in battery (e.g., Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237).

Conclusion

Collins v Wilcock establishes that implied consent permits ordinary physical contact common in social life, but any touch exceeding what is socially acceptable, or done without lawful authority, can constitute battery. This decision remains significant for distinguishing lawful contact from actionable battery and clarifies personal rights against unwanted physical interference.