• In the case of Haystead v cc Derbyshire 2000 3 all er 890, it was found that battery does not require direct application of force on the victim through physical contact or a medium. That medium can be a person other than a victim.

Facts of the Case

  • H appealed against a conviction of assault by beating. He had been accused of beating a child by the child’s mother causing the child to fall and hit his head.
  • He argues that battery required the direct application of force which was to involve direct physical contract with the victim either with the body or with a medium such as a weapon.

Issues in Haystead v cc Derbyshire 2000 3 all er 890

  • Could the appellant prove that battery required direct application of force on the victim.

Held by Court

  • Appeal dismissed

Laws LJ

  • It was held that battery did not require direct application of force.
  • The correct approach to the actus reus of battery was set out in Smith and Hogan, criminal Law (9th Edition (1999) p.406) which revealed that battery did not require the direct infliction of violence.

“The appellant’s use of force on this occasion was unlawful. He punched Angela Wright twice and in such a way that the child fell from her hands and was injured. It is plain to us that the application of the force to Miss Wright is indistinguishable from the application of force to the child. The fact that the unlawful force caused the child to fall is in our view the same as applying the force directly to the person of the child. The situation was entirely foreseeable. The force applied to Miss Wright was the same force which caused the child to fall, and it was unlawful force.

If the appellant had swung a punch at the child and missed it is likely that no ‘assault’ would have taken place because the child would not have apprehended immediate violence. If he had swung a punch at Miss Wright and missed but hit the child he would have been guilty of a reckless assault by beating. There is no suggestion that the child jumped − he fell as a direct consequence of the application of force to person that was holding him. Accordingly to suggest that by swinging a punch at Miss Wright, connecting and directly causing the child to fall thereby suffering an injury, no offence is committed in respect of the child, we believe to be absurd. The single act of unlawful violence by the appellant was a battery to both Angela Wright and the child.” [13]

Exclusive Industry Scoop

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.