Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172
Facts
Police officers approached two women in the street to ask questions about suspected soliciting. Collins refused to cooperate and walked away. An officer took hold of her arm to restrain her, although the officer was not exercising a lawful power of arrest. Collins scratched the officer and was convicted of assaulting a constable in the execution of her duty. On appeal, the court considered whether the officer's physical restraint was lawful and how ordinary social contact differs from an unlawful interference with another person's body.
Legal Issue
Was the officer acting in the execution of her duty when she physically restrained Collins without exercising a lawful power of detention or arrest?
Held
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal. The officer's conduct went beyond the ordinary contact that people generally accept in everyday life. Taking hold of Collins to stop her leaving was a restraint requiring legal justification, and none was established on the facts.
The court distinguished such detention from limited contact that may be acceptable when attracting someone's attention. Police status did not itself confer authority to restrain a person who declined to answer questions. Because the officer was acting unlawfully in the relevant encounter, the conviction for assaulting a constable in the execution of duty could not stand. The result did not create a general right to use unlimited force against police officers.
⭐ Legal Principle
Intentional physical restraint requires consent or lawful justification. Ordinary socially acceptable contact is treated differently, but a police officer cannot detain someone by force merely to continue questioning without an applicable legal power. The lawfulness of the officer's action matters to an execution-of-duty charge.
Significance
Collins explains the boundary between everyday touching and battery, while also illustrating limits on police powers. It is useful for distinguishing a request to cooperate from legally authorised detention. In a problem question, identify the power relied upon, the nature of the contact and any lawful response. The case should not be confused with R v Collins, the separate burglary decision about entry as a trespasser.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was holding Collins's arm legally significant?
It was used to prevent her leaving, rather than merely to attract attention. That restraint required a lawful basis. The officer was not exercising an applicable arrest or detention power, so the encounter could not be justified simply by the wish to continue questioning her about suspected conduct.
Does every unwanted touch amount to unlawful battery?
No. The judgment recognises ordinary contact generally accepted in daily life, such as some jostling or attention-seeking contact. The scope and purpose of the touching matter. Physical restraint preventing someone leaving is materially different and requires consent or an independent legal justification on the facts.
Why did the lawfulness of detention affect the criminal conviction?
The charge required the constable to be acting in the execution of her duty. Unlawful restraint undermined that element in this encounter. The decision therefore did not simply excuse any resistance to an officer; it required examination of the officer's legal power and the particular conduct involved.