To what extent is the reference to battery within this definition of assault an accurate reflection of the law

This essay discusses the relationship between battery and assault in tort law. It explains the differences between the two and how assault is an attempt to commit battery. The essay also explores the essential elements of assault and battery and how they reflect each other.

To what extent is the
reference to battery
within this definition of
assault an accurate
reflection of the law

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY ..................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
A tort law is a area of legislation which covers many civil suits. It is generally a claim
which arises in the civil court with an exception of the contractual dispute. The main aim of this
law is to redress the wrong that is done to the person so that appropriate remedy or relief is
provided from wrongful act of the others. It usually involves providing monetary damages by
way of compensation,. Its intention is to provide the full amount of compensation for the proved
harms. It is considered as the form of the restorative justice since it is aimed to seek the remedy
for the injury or loss with the monetary compensation1. This essay will deal with an extent to
which the reference to the battery in the definition of assault is the accurate reflection of law.
MAIN BODY
Battery and assault are related but at the same time distinct crimes under the law. Battery
can be referred to as the unlawful application of the physical force to the other person while
assault is an attempt to commit the battery or any act which may cause the other person a
reasonable fear for the imminent battery. There is no minimum degree of the force required in
order to constitute a battery rather a mere touch is just sufficient and the force is not required to
be applied directly. Negligence or an accident which results in the injury cannot make an
individual punishable under the law for battery unless and until it is occurred at the time of
committing any unlawful offence.
Battery can be defined as the intentional touching or the application of the force to body
of any other person or anything which relates to them in the offensive or harmful manner,
without any consent of person. Its essential elements includes primarily the use of force wherein
for constituting the offence of battery against any person, it is important that there is use of the
force. Even when the force which is used is not too harmful, still a force if used, commits a
battery. Although, there are many instances when there is no injury caused directly by the
physical touch but a force is used in an indirect manner, that is, without the bodily contact with
aggressor such as using bullet, stick or spitting on the face of person are some examples of it.
Moreover, when any person gets physical injury by inflicting light odour, heat, etc. it is battery2.
1 "Assault And Battery. Mistaken Identity" (2016) 11(3)
2 "Assault And Battery: Apparent Ability" (2017) 11(1)

Next is without the lawful jurisdiction wherein it is essential that force which is used
must be unlawful and without the jurisdiction. For example, when two people are meeting on the
road and silently passed each other by having some of the physical contact then there is no
offence of the battery but when tow people pass by each other and at the time of crossing they
began to start fighting, it is an offence of battery which has been committed by the one who
began the fight.
Assault is the tort which is an act of defendant that causes to plaintiff some reasonable
apprehension by infliction of battery on him by defendant. When defendant have created its act
by the apprehension in the mind of plaintiff that it is going to commit the battery against the
plaintiff, it is the wrong of assault. The wrong comprises of the attempt to do the harm rather
then just causing the harm thereby. In the charge of assault, it must include the conduct which is
offensive or may cause the other person a fear of its safety. This states clearly that an individual
can be guilty of the assault even if it caused no physical harm to victim. In a case of R v. S.
George, the defendant pointed out the loaded gun to the other person, it was held liable for the
offence of assault. When pistol is not being loaded then also it can be an assault if it is pointed to
such a distance which may cause the harm or injury. Moreover, if the person advances manner of
the threat to use the force, it is assault3. This was held in the case of Stephens v. Myers.
The essential ingredients of the offence of assault includes primarily the act or the
conduct which intended to created. In order to prove the criminal attack, the behaviour of
defendant should be such that it motivated for creating the situation of the danger or fear in the
mind of victim. The accident acts does not include any allegation of the assault. Next is
reasonable apprehension wherein the there is reasonable believe of the victim that the conduct
of defendant will humiliate or harm it. It must have the understanding of the defendant's potential
offensive or harmful act. Furthermore, another ingredient is imminent harm wherein the victim
have fear which is the direct response to a threat which is imminent. Future threats do not
constitute assault rather there should be a kind of the perceived physical threat to victim for the
loss4.
3 Evans, John et al, Report Of The Case Of Trespass & Assault And Battery, Wherein John Evans Was
Plaintiff (Printed for P. Byrne, 2017)
4 "Damages: Assault And Battery: Inadequacy Of Verdict" (2018) 2(6)

As in the case of Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd, Rixon had the exclusion order from Sydney
Casino under the law. Despite the order, he attended casino wherein it was approached by the
employee of casino who have placed its hand on its shoulder and asked him to move to the room
with him. He stayed in the room for 90 minutes till the police have arisen and charged Rixon.
Under the relevant law, it was stated that the person who suspects reasonably any other for
breach of law, it may detain him. It was argued by Rixon that when any person is subject to the
exclusion order, it must be escorted off from premises. He sued for the battery, assault and false
imprisonment. It was held by the court that for depriving anyone of their liberty, there must be a
clear intent and in this case, the intent was clear so there is no false imprisonment. For battery,
putting hands on the shoulder on one person is found to be normal so it comes under the
exception of the battery. In regards to assault, as the conduct was not accompanied by the
intention to create the apprehension of the impeding physical conduct, so there is no charge for
assault. Hence, all the claims failed in this case. Sheller JA stressed on the distinction between
the two wherein the employee does not have intention to create the apprehension of the imminent
harm in the mind of Rixon and the placement of the hand on the shoulder of plaintiff does not
constitute battery5.
There is a slight difference between the offence of battery and assault despite the latter
has some reflection of battery in it as assault is regarded as an attempt to commit the battery and
the threat for the violence is enough and there is no need for the physical contact while in
battery, there must be intentional application of the force to other without the lawful jurisdiction
and there must be presence of the physical contract. It can be said that the assault is a first step
towards the commission of battery as the former involves on threat to the person while the latter
involves causing harm to the person. In the offence of assault, there should be the apprehension
of inflicting the battery in the mind of person while in battery, the force is applied in an
intentional manner without lawful jurisdiction that results in injury to other6. However, it can be
said that the term assault is used often to include battery that is committed by the reckless or
intentional application of the unlawful force to other person. So the reference of battery in the
definition of the assault is the accurate reflection of the law as the latter is an attempt t commit
the former.
5 "Assault And Battery: Self Defense" (2016) 17(1)
6 "Assault And Battery. Common Design. Joint Responsibility" (2017) 6(1)

CONCLUSION
It is concluded from this essay that the tort is referred to as the civil wrong for which the
court provides the relief to the person against the wrongful act. Battery and assault are tow
distinct offences wherein the former is included in the latter as assault is an attempt to commit
the offence of battery. For assault, there are three essential elements to this which includes the
act or conduct, reasonable apprehension and the imminent harm while the battery has two
essential ingredient which includes use of the force without the lawful jurisdiction. These are
distinct offence as there is a distinction between them., despite the differences between them, the
definition of assault reflects the ingredients of battery as the former is an attempt to commit
battery.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
"Assault And Battery: Apparent Ability" (2017) 11(1)
"Assault And Battery: Self Defense" (2016) 17(1)
"Assault And Battery. Common Design. Joint Responsibility" (2017) 6(1)
"Assault And Battery. Mistaken Identity" (2016) 11(3)
"Damages: Assault And Battery: Inadequacy Of Verdict" (2018) 2(6)
Evans, John et al, Report Of The Case Of Trespass & Assault And Battery, Wherein John Evans
Was Plaintiff (Printed for P. Byrne, 2017)