Collins v Wilcock

Last updated

Collins v Wilcock
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court High Court of Justice
Decided16 April 1984
Citation(s)[1984] 1 WLR 1172; [1984] 3 All ER 374; (1984) 148 JP 692; (1984) 79 Cr App R 229; (1984) 128 Sol Jo 660; (1984) 81 LS Gaz 2140; [1984] Crim LR 481
Case history
Appealed from Marylebone Magistrates' Court
Court membership
Judges sitting Goff LJ and Mann J

Collins v Wilcock [1] is an appellate case decided in 1984 by a divisional court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of England and Wales. It is concerned with trespass to the person focusing on battery.

Collins v Wilcock is a leading case. [2] Expanding on Lord John Holt's definition of intent in Cole v Turner , Lord Robert Goff's ruling in Collins v Wilcock narrowed the law. [3] "An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly harms someone indirectly. A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly harms someone directly." But it also says this: "An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery." It notes that the only distinction between common assault and causing actual bodily harm (under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861) is the degree of injury. [4]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assault</span> Physical or verbal attack of another person

An assault is the act of illegally committing physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in criminal prosecution, civil liability, or both. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the act of creating apprehension of such contact.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same.

False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus.

Transferred intent is a legal doctrine that holds that, when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible. To be held legally responsible, a court typically must demonstrate that the perpetrator had criminal intent, that is, that they knew or should have known that another would be harmed by their actions and wanted this harm to occur. For example, if a murderer intends to kill John, but accidentally kills George instead, the intent is transferred from John to George, and the killer is held to have had criminal intent.

At common law, battery is a tort falling under the umbrella term 'Trespass to the person'. Entailing unlawful contact which is directed and intentional, or reckless and voluntarily bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them, such as a bag or purse, without legal consent.

Assault occasioning grievous bodily harm is a term used in English criminal law to describe the severest forms of battery. It refers to two offences that are created by sections 18 and 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The distinction between these two sections is the requirement of specific intent for section 18; the offence under section 18 is variously referred to as "wounding with intent" or "causing grievous bodily harm with intent", whereas the offence under section 20 is variously referred to as "unlawful wounding", "malicious wounding" or "inflicting grievous bodily harm".

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. 'The conduct forbidden by this tort is an act that threatens violence.'

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a statutory offence of aggravated assault in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Hong Kong and the Solomon Islands. It has been abolished in the Republic of Ireland and in South Australia, but replaced with a similar offence.

<i>R v Brown</i> UK House of Lords case

R v Brown[1993] UKHL 19, [1994] 1 AC 212 is a House of Lords judgment which re-affirmed the conviction of five men for their involvement in consensual unusually severe sadomasochistic sexual acts over a 10-year period. They were convicted of a count of unlawful and malicious wounding and a count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The key issue facing the Court was whether consent was a valid defence to assault in these circumstances, to which the Court answered in the negative. The acts involved included the nailing of a part of the body to a board, but not so as to necessitate, strictly, medical treatment.

In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness.

In criminal law, intent is a subjective state of mind that must accompany the acts of certain crimes to constitute a violation. A more formal, generally synonymous legal term is scienter: intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.

Common assault is an offence in English law. It is committed by a person who causes another person to apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence by the defendant. In England and Wales, the penalty and mode of trial for this offence is provided by section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker, chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

In criminal law, the term offence against the person or crime against the person usually refers to a crime which is committed by direct physical harm or force being applied to another person.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English criminal law</span> Legal system of England and Wales relating to crime

English criminal law concerns offences, their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales. Criminal conduct is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, has responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law, and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal. The fundamentals of a crime are a guilty act and a guilty mental state. The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that a defendant should have recognised or intended that they were acting wrongly, although in modern regulation a large number of offences relating to road traffic, environmental damage, financial services and corporations, create strict liability that can be proven simply by the guilty act.

Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.

Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Non-fatal offences against the person, under English law, are generally taken to mean offences which take the form of an attack directed at another person, that do not result in the death of any person. Such offences where death occurs are considered homicide, whilst sexual offences are generally considered separately, since they differ substantially from other offences against the person in theoretical basis and composition. Non-fatal offences against the person mainly derive from the Offences against the Person Act 1861, although no definition of assault or battery is given there.

References

  1. [1984] 1 WLR 1172; [1984] 3 All ER 374.
  2. Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2015] 1 WLR 312; [2014] EWCA Civ 897 at para 17. Bailey, Harris and Ormerod. Civil Liberties: Cases and Materials. 5th Ed. Butterworths. 2001. p 164. Weaver. Readings in Criminal Law. 5th Ed. Anderson Publishing Company. 1998. p 406. The Law Commission, Legislating the Criminal Code: Offences against the Person and General Principles, Law Com 122, 1992, para 9.17.
  3. "2.2.3 Collins v. Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172 (QB) | Tort Law: Cases and Commentaries | CanLII". CanLII. Archived from the original on 31 August 2021. Retrieved 2 February 2022.
  4. [1984] 3 All ER 374 et seq