aa battery tester COLLINS v WILCOCK [1984] 1 WLR 1
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
COLLINS v WILCOCK [1984] 1 WLR 1172
16 April 1984
Editor’s comments in red.
Full text
ROBERT GOFF LJ:
…
The law draws a distinction, in terms without difficulty understood by philologists [OED: persons who study the dwelling, historical development, and relationships to a language or languages] when compared with ordinary citizens, between an assault and then a battery tester.
Assault
An assault is definitely an act then may cause other people to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person …
battery tester
[A] battery tester often is the actual infliction of unlawful force on a different person [without his consent].
… Principle principle, plain and incontestable, is usually that every person’s is inviolate. They have always been established that any touching of one other person, however slight, may add up to a battery bank tester. So Holt CJ kept in 1704 that ‘the least touching of one other in anger may be a battery tester’ … The breadth of one’s principle reflects the essential nature of your interest so protected; as Blackstone wrote on his Commentaries:
‘The law cannot draw the cloths line between different examples of violence, thereby totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of computer; every man’s person being sacred,
aa battery tester
, without any other using a to certainly meddle about it, in any the least manner.’
The issue is everybody remains safe and secure but not only against injuries but against any form of physical molestation. But so widely drawn a principle must inevitably be susceptible to exceptions. For instance, children can be come across reasonable punishment; people could possibly be come across the lawful exercise of this power of arrest; and reasonable force can be used in self-defence or preventing crime. …
sd1e2q1
charlenar 
Comments are closed.