## Introduction

In English criminal law, battery is the unlawful application of force to another person. The actus reus is the physical element of the offence: any unlawful touching, however slight. No injury is required; the focus is on contact that is not consented to and not otherwise justified. Battery is distinct from assault, which concerns causing another to fear immediate unlawful violence without necessarily making contact.

This guide explains what counts as force, how indirect contact can still be a battery, when everyday contact is permitted, and how the case law frames the limits. It is written for students and trainees in England and Wales, including those preparing for the SQE.

## What You’ll Learn

- The definition of the actus reus of battery and how it differs from assault
- What counts as “force” (including the slightest touch and contact with clothing)
- When indirect acts amount to battery (e.g., setting a trap or causing a chain of events)
- How consent and the “exigencies of everyday life” limit liability
- Why continuing acts matter, with reference to Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- How key cases (Collins v Wilcock, Fagan v MPC, R v Martin) are applied in problem questions
- Practical steps to analyse fact patterns for battery in exams and in practice

## Core Concepts

### What counts as “force” in battery?

- The threshold is low: any unlawful touching will do, even a light tap.
- In Collins v Wilcock [1984], the Court of Appeal confirmed that “any touching” of another person can be a battery unless justified.
- Contact can be through clothing. In R v Thomas [1985], the court said that touching a person’s clothes while they are wearing them is equivalent to touching the person.
- Force may be applied with an object. Striking someone with a bag, poking with a stick, or spitting can each amount to battery.

Everyday contact is permitted where consent is implied. Normal jostling on public transport, or a light touch to gain attention, is part of “the exigencies of everyday life”. The line is crossed where contact goes beyond what a reasonable person would accept in that context.

### Direct and indirect application of force

- Battery does not require direct skin-to-skin contact.
- Indirect force can be enough. In R v Martin (1881), the defendant caused panic in a theatre by obstructing an exit; injuries caused by the resulting crowd movement were attributed to his actions.
- Similar reasoning appears in DPP v K [1990], where acid placed in a hand dryer later harmed another student. Setting a mechanism in motion that results in unlawful contact can constitute battery.
- Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000] shows battery can be committed indirectly via a third party (the defendant struck a woman causing her to drop a child, who was injured).

The key question is whether the defendant caused unlawful contact with the complainant, even if the method was indirect or involved a chain of events.

### Consent and implied consent

- Consent makes contact lawful. In daily life, we generally accept minor physical contact, especially in crowded places.
- Consent may be express (e.g., in sport or medical treatment) or implied by the situation.
- Consent can be withdrawn. Continuing to touch a person after they clearly indicate they do not agree may render the contact unlawful.
- There are limits to consent where harm goes beyond common assault; however, for battery (which does not require injury), consent is often the central issue.

### Continuing acts and omissions

- Battery can be committed as a continuing act. Fagan v MPC [1969] is the classic case: driving onto a police officer’s foot was accidental, but remaining on the foot after being told to move was intentional. The actus reus continued while the mens rea formed.
- Pure omissions rarely suffice without a duty to act, but where an initial act creates ongoing unlawful contact, failure to end the contact can complete or prolong the offence.
- In practice questions, consider whether the contact was still ongoing when the defendant formed intention or accepted the risk.

## Key Examples or Case Studies

### Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 (CA)

- Facts: A police officer, without arresting, grabbed a woman’s arm to stop her walking away. She scratched the officer to free herself and was charged.
- Held: The officer’s initial grabbing was a battery. Police contact must be justified (e.g., lawful arrest). The court introduced the “exigencies of everyday life” concept to explain implied consent to minor, everyday contact.
- Why it matters: Sets the modern definition of battery and clarifies the boundary between acceptable everyday touching and unlawful contact.

### Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439

- Facts: Fagan accidentally drove onto a police officer’s foot. After being asked to move, he stayed there for some time.
- Held: The offence was a continuing act. Although the initial drive-on was accidental, the continued presence of the wheel on the officer’s foot became intentional and amounted to battery.
- Why it matters: Demonstrates that the actus reus can continue, allowing the mens rea to coincide with it. This is essential when timing is in issue.

### R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54

- Facts: The defendant placed an iron bar across a theatre doorway and shouted “Fire!”, causing a crowd surge and injuries.
- Held: Liability was established for the injuries caused by the panic. Although decided in the context of grievous bodily harm under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, it is widely cited on indirect application of force.
- Why it matters: Shows that causing unlawful contact through a chain of events can satisfy the physical element of offences against the person, including battery at the lower end.

### Further helpful authorities

- R v Thomas [1985] 81 Cr App R 331: Touching clothing on the person is equivalent to touching the person.
- DPP v K [1990] 1 All ER 331: Indirect battery by setting a mechanism (acid in a hand dryer) that later makes contact with the victim.
- Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000] 3 All ER 890: Battery can be committed through indirect force via another person.

## Practical Applications

Use this structured approach for problem questions and practice:

1. Identify contact
   - Was there physical contact with the person or their clothing?
   - If not direct, did the defendant set in motion a mechanism or chain of events causing contact?

2. Assess lawfulness
   - Was there express consent (sport, medical procedure) or implied consent (normal social contact)?
   - Was the contact justified by legal authority (e.g., lawful arrest with reasonable force)?

3. Check the degree of force
   - The slightest touch can suffice; injury is not required.
   - Spitting, pushing, tapping, or grabbing may all qualify if unlawful.

4. Consider timing and continuing acts
   - Did the contact continue while the defendant formed intention (Fagan)?
   - If the initial act was accidental but later maintained, the actus reus may still be present.

5. Consider indirect force
   - Booby traps, blocked exits, or using third parties can amount to battery if they lead to unlawful contact (R v Martin, DPP v K, Haystead).

6. Review potential defences
   - Consent, lawful authority, self-defence or defence of another (reasonable force), and lawful correction in very limited contexts may apply.
   - For police and security, ensure powers were exercised lawfully and proportionately.

7. Apply to common scenarios
   - Supermarket shove to get past someone: likely battery unless justified.
   - Pulling a chair away as someone sits: indirect force causing unlawful contact with the floor.
   - Jostling on the Tube at rush hour: generally implied consent unless the contact is excessive.
   - Grabbing an arm to prevent someone from leaving without lawful authority: likely battery (Collins v Wilcock).

Exam and practice tips:

- Separate actus reus and mens rea. Prove contact first, then address intention or recklessness.
- Use the everyday contact principle to test the limits of implied consent.
- In indirect cases, track causation clearly from the defendant’s act to the contact.

## Summary Checklist

- Battery actus reus: unlawful touching of another, however slight.
- Contact can be direct, via clothing, or indirect through mechanisms or third parties.
- Everyday contact may be permitted by implied consent; beyond that it becomes unlawful.
- Continuing acts allow coincidence of actus reus and mens rea (Fagan v MPC).
- Collins v Wilcock defines modern limits of acceptable contact and police powers.
- R v Martin and DPP v K show how indirect force satisfies the physical element.
- Always test for lawfulness: consent, legal authority, and reasonable force in self-defence.

## Quick Reference

| Concept                   | Authority                | Key takeaway                                                |
| ------------------------- | ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------- |
| Any unlawful touching     | Collins v Wilcock [1984] | The slightest unwanted contact can be battery               |
| Touching clothing         | R v Thomas [1985]        | Touching clothes worn by a person = touching the person     |
| Indirect application      | R v Martin (1881)        | Causing contact via a chain of events can amount to battery |
| Mechanism causing contact | DPP v K [1990]           | Setting a device that later makes contact can be battery    |
| Continuing act            | Fagan v MPC [1969]       | Actus reus can continue until mens rea forms                |
| Everyday implied consent  | Collins v Wilcock [1984] | Normal social jostling is permitted unless excessive        |


Battery Actus Reus: Definition, Requirements and Key Cases