## Facts

- The defendant was being lawfully searched by a police officer during an arrest.
- The defendant failed to inform the officer of a needle in his pocket.
- The officer, unaware of the needle, put her hand into the defendant’s pocket and was stabbed by it.
- The prosecution argued that the defendant’s act of concealing the needle created a foreseeable risk of injury and that his failure to warn the officer amounted to battery.
- The court’s focus was on whether the omission to disclose the needle’s presence, following the defendant's prior action, constituted battery resulting in the officer’s injury.

## Issues

1. Whether an omission, specifically the failure to disclose the presence of a needle, can constitute battery.
2. Whether a duty of care arises from creating a dangerous situation through prior actions.
3. Whether recklessness in failing to prevent foreseeable harm is sufficient for liability in battery by omission.

## Decision

- The court determined that an omission could amount to battery where the defendant’s prior conduct created a foreseeable risk of harm and established a duty to act.
- The presence of the needle and the defendant’s failure to inform the officer, given the creation of risk, was considered a breach of duty capable of grounding liability for battery.
- The omission to warn about the needle satisfied the requirement for the direct application of force by establishing causation through a prior act and a subsequent reckless omission.
- The court clarified that intent to harm is not always necessary; recklessness or negligence may suffice in omission-based battery.

## Legal Principles

- Battery is not limited to affirmative acts but can arise from omissions where a prior act creates a foreseeable risk and a duty to prevent harm.
- The duty of care may arise when an individual’s actions have created a dangerous situation for others.
- The distinction between assault and battery lies in the requirement for physical contact in battery and only apprehension in assault.
- Mere passivity is insufficient for liability; there must be an act or omission resulting from a prior duty to act.
- Recklessness or negligence in fulfilling a duty can constitute battery in cases involving omissions.

## Conclusion

DPP v Santana-Bermudez clarified that an omission may amount to battery if the defendant’s earlier conduct created a foreseeable risk imposing a duty to act, and failure to act then results in harm. This decision broadened the scope of battery to include liability for reckless omissions in appropriate circumstances.


DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 (Admin)