Police officers are allowed to make contact with others in the course of their duty and not all physical contact made by a police officer will amount to battery. In Donnelly v Jackman (1970) a police officer tapped the defendant on the shoulder to bring his attention to something and the defendant turned around and assaulted the police officer.
The defendant was charged with assaulting a police officer in the course of his duty and the defendant countered by alleging that the police officer’s actions amounted to battery. The court decided that the police officer’s actions did not amount to battery.
Some leeway must be given to police officers to enable them to do their job or to carry out their duties effectively. That scope however is quite narrow.
- Physical force or the application of physical force.
In order to be convicted for battery the defendant must have applied some sort of physical force that is unreasonable under the circumstances and does not fall under the scope of acceptable codes of conduct. That physical force however need not be severe and mere touching could amount to battery.
In Faulkner v Talbot (1981) it was held that battery includes the intentional or reckless touching of someone without the consent of that person or without lawful excuse and the act need not be hostile.
The decision in Faulkner v Talbot (1981) however must be compared with the decision in Wilson v Pringle (1986) when one schoolboy sued another for injuries sustained while fooling around in the school corridor. It was decided that in order for the actions of the defendant to amount to battery the act must be hostile.
In short it would be safe to say, as per Collins v Wilcock (1984), that what amounts to battery or otherwise depends on the facts of each case.
Copyright © 2018 by Dyarne Ward