Assault and Battery - Essay Example

? Tort Law No: Roll No: Tort Law Assault and Battery Assault and Battery can be considered two different types of offenses which under the law are unlawful. It is an offense to harm the opponent in retaliation or to achieve ulterior motives. However, battery is an act by which a person or persons touch the body of another person to harm him in revenge1. The basic difference between the assault and the battery is the physical appearance or non-appearance of a bodily contact of one person with the other person or not. However, contact is the basic element of battery. Since contact is an essential element of battery, there must be an absence of contact for an assault. In other words loosing battery comes under the ambit of an assault2. As per the law of UK both the offenses can be booked under criminal and law of tort. Therefore, anyone who found guilty under the offenses is liable for prosecution under the criminal and civil law. Under the criminal law assault is an attempt to commit a battery one some one’s body3. Intention or motive behind an offense is necessary. The defendant or the attacker must have intention or motive to harm someone bodily. Assault and battery have two motives a) one in retaliation and b) in self defense. The intention or motive involved in assault and battery should appear on the body of the aggrieved person. If there is no intention or motive of a person to bodily harm another person, legally cannot be considered guilty of offenses as mentioned hereinabove4. Consent In all civilized states, consent is used in defense of civil assault and battery by the offenders. However, combating with mutual consensus does not deprive anybody of his or her legal right to sue. However, there is difference of opinion amongst the jurists whether the criminal assault or battery can be used in defense of any person. It is the consent which plays an important role in providing defense protection. In case, if it is obtained by way of fraud or under duress cannot be taken as protective defense against an offender. Take the example of a sports man who participates in a hockey match has the implied consent for a bodily contact during the game should be within the permissible limit5. Self-Defense A commonly used term wherein a person can use a certain degree of force to save himself from bodily injuries inflicted upon by another person. Now it is up to jury to determine whether the degree of force used in self defense is valid and permissible under the law. If a man by his or her own will initiate fight without justified reasons against another person cannot be treated such fight in self dense. Here, the intention and motive of a person does matter6. As far as the use of force against the offender with an object to save himself or herself in retaliation of an aggressor’s attempt is justifiable under the law. In all the countries around the globe, a defender can use deadly weapon to save his or her life provided his or her life is in danger. In majority states, law provides support to a person who may stand in front of an aggressor to defend himself although the chances of safe escape from the scene are there7. The court will examine the degree of force used by the defender against the offender under the circumstances was justified or not. The following factors should be taken into account by the jury while deciding the matter a) age b) size and c) strength of participants8. Defense of Others Helping out others in their turmoil or in case of need treated valid defense provided the defender was not at fault. In case of defending others, the defender’s right to claim self defense of a protected person cannot be undermined. In few cases the defender reasonably believes that he or she was in need of help to come out of the worst scenario9. The law of tort treats the assault and battery an attack on the security and safety of a person life hence the wrong done to the victims attracts compensation for the damages. Under the civil law, the amount of compensation will determine by the competent jury keeping in view the gravity of the damages. Usually a petitioner or claimant may claim compensation against the wrongs done to him by way of direct or indirect method. The claimant may claim compensation in terms of pains and sufferings, he or she meted as a result of injuries, borne medical expenses on the treatment and the loss of income of the period during which he or she unable to work. He or she may also claim compensation of nominal damages under assault and battery. According to punitive damages, the affected person or persons may claim compensation so as to deter others from doing the same thing in future that may attract punitive damages in shape of compensation. In view the above, the offender of assault or battery may be put on criminal liability10. In case, an offender found guilty of criminal assault, may be sent to behind the bar, may attract penalty or both. The time spent by the offender or offenders in prison should be taken into consideration while deciding the case by the competent jury. If there is an intention of murder or expected harm from the offenders may be termed as aggravated assault and battery on the part of defendant. There cannot be two opinions about the intention or motive of an offender to use deadly weapons against the enemies for an assault and battery. The assault and battery as per the UK law is punishable offense under felony in all Counties of UK11. Under the UK law of tort trespassing can be categorized as a) trespass that relates to person b) trespass concerning goods and c) trespass relating to property. In the broader spectrum, trespass has three dimensions a) assault to make some one believes that he or she may be attacked at any time b) battery is the use of direct force to intimidate other person and last but not least c) imprisonment of a person on fake charges which deprives someone to move freely without lawful authority. Cited actions can fairly be termed as direct or intentional act to harm some body. All these acts fall under the purview of negligence under law of tort. In assault and battery the burden of proof lies on the shoulder of claimant. Contrary to that unlawful imprisonment of a person falls within the ambit of strict liability. The guiding principal derives from the statement of justice Goff in Collins v Wilcock case wherein the said honorable justice stated "any person's body requires sanctity from others except normal physical contact in day to day affair”12. As per the broaden definition trespass to goods of others in fact is a wrongful physical custody of another person’s goods can be invoked the jurisdiction of common law but torts act 1977 as well which deals in the cases of Interference with goods. Touching or moving of goods titled to others without lawful authority is liable under the law of tort. The court may examine the damages that occurred at the hands of illegal mover to compensate the affected party13. Further trespassing to other’s property is unjustifiable move and liable for criminal proceedings under the law of tort, a crime which can be addressed in line with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It does not require affected party to prove harm that meted out at the hands of offenders to claim compensation rather it is liable for action under the mentioned act. There are so many cases that come to surface wherein most trespassing was intentional. It is the court of law to decide whether the act of the offender was intentional or based on innocence14. Conclusion We have discussed each and every aspect of rights and liabilities available to the aggrieved party under the criminal law, civil law, law of tort, tort of trespassing and come to the conclusion that James did hit the Barry to assault him but his attempt to assault Barry gone in vain since Barry was ducked down to make his escape good from assault. Instead of Barry, James hit his close friend that made him unconscious. Barry in fear of James expected move to hit him back compels to attack James forehead with an empty bottle that caused James long cut above his eyes. On the other hand the move of Barry was in his self defense to save himself from the expected damages at the hands of James therefore, he is not liable for any action available under the criminal law or civil law or law of tort. Further, James may not claim compensation for the wrong done to him by Barry in retaliation of his action against Barry under law of tort since James move to assault Barry was intentional and established. Moreover, if a man or woman by his or her own will initiate fighting against another person cannot justify his or her fight in self dense. Here the intention and motive of a person does matter which in the case, under discussion is very much clear. Bibliography C Elliott and F Quinn, Tort Law (6th edn, Pearson Longman 2007). K Smith and DJ Keenan, English Law (14th edn, Pearson Education Ltd 2004). M Lunney and K Oliphant, Tort Law – Texts, Cases (2nd edn, OUP 2003). S Deakin, A Johnston and B Markesinis, Tort Law (5th edn, OUP 2003). V Bermingham and C Brennan, & Tort Law (OUP 2008). Read More