Battery — common mistakes

In a problem question, do not dismiss a potential battery claim just because the contact seems minor. The courts have consistently held that even the slightest touch can be a battery. Focus your analysis on whether the contact was direct, intentional, and unlawful, rather than on its severity.

No, this would not be a battery. Firstly, the act was accidental, not intentional, so the claim would be in negligence, not battery (Letang v Cooper). Secondly, the law recognises that in everyday life, some physical contact is unavoidable. This is covered by the concept of 'implied consent' or the 'exigencies of everyday life' as described in Collins v Wilcock. Such contact is not considered 'unlawful'.

For the crime of battery, the prosecution can prove the mental element (mens rea) through either intention or recklessness (R v Venna). However, for the tort of battery, the claimant must prove that the defendant intended the contact. A merely reckless act is insufficient for the tort of battery; it must be pursued under the tort of negligence (Letang v Cooper).

Yes. The 'force' can be applied to things intimately connected to the person. For example, touching someone's clothing while they are wearing it (Pursell v Horn), knocking a hat off their head, or grabbing something from their hand can all be sufficient to constitute a battery, as it violates their personal space.