## Facts

- Two police officers observed the appellant and another woman, known as a sex worker, in the street and suspected them of soliciting for prostitution.
- The officers asked the women to enter their vehicle for questioning; the appellant refused and walked away.
- A policewoman exited the vehicle to question the appellant further and, when the appellant refused to cooperate, grabbed her arm to stop her from leaving.
- The appellant responded by swearing and scratching the officer’s arm.
- The appellant was charged and convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty.
- The matter on appeal focused on whether the police officer’s act of restraining the appellant was lawful and thus whether the subsequent response by the appellant constituted assault.

## Issues

1. Whether the police officer’s act of physically restraining the appellant was lawful or amounted to an unlawful battery.
2. Whether the appellant’s actions towards the police officer constituted assault, given the lawfulness of the officer’s conduct.
3. What constitutes battery, specifically regarding the necessity of consent—explicit or implied—and the boundaries of acceptable everyday physical contact.

## Decision

- The Divisional Court allowed the appellant’s appeal and quashed her conviction for assaulting a police officer.
- The Court found the policewoman’s act of grabbing the appellant’s arm to prevent her from leaving was unlawful because she had no legal authority, not being engaged in arrest or exercising statutory powers.
- Any touching of another person, however slight, can constitute battery unless justified by explicit or implied consent, or by necessity in everyday life.
- The Court held the police officer’s conduct exceeded what counts as implied consent in daily life, amounting to an unlawful battery.
- The appellant’s action in scratching the officer was therefore in self-defense and did not amount to assault.

## Legal Principles

- Battery is defined as any intentional physical contact with another person without consent, subject to exceptions for everyday contact where implied consent is presumed.
- Everyday interactions may involve physical contact, but only to a degree that is reasonably necessary and generally acceptable for the conduct of daily life.
- The law protects bodily autonomy; all persons—police officers included, when not exercising specific statutory powers—may not subject others to non-consensual physical restraint.
- Reference was made to Blackstone's Commentaries, reiterating that the law prohibits all degrees of unauthorized violence and intrusion as every person’s body is sacred.
- The boundaries between battery in tort and crime may differ from the "hostility" element identified in subsequent cases, with _Collins v Wilcock_ emphasizing consent as the principal factor.

## Conclusion

_Collins v Wilcock_ [1984] 3 All ER 374 (Div Ct) established that any non-consensual physical touching, unless covered by implied consent as required by daily interactions, may constitute battery, with police officers subject to the same limits unless exercising statutory powers. This case clarified the law around bodily autonomy and informed both police conduct and general civil interactions.

Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 (Div Ct)