What is the difference between assault and battery?

By Makhsudul Islam

Assault and battery are both constituents of trespass to the person, which protects the claimant against interference with his or her person. However these acts need to be carried out intentionally, by direct and immediate actions and are actionable per se, meaning no proof of damage is necessary. To the lay citizen these torts are perhaps better recognised as criminal offences and the defendant will normally face criminal rather than civil charges for such actions.

 Battery

 Battery is where force is applied intentionally by immediate and direct means to another individual. This can vary from the most minor contact with the claimant, such as an unwanted peck on the cheek, to a violent blow in the head. Since the tort is actionable per se, both types of battery render the defendant liable to pay damages. The requirements for battery are viz.:

 (i)                 It must be intentional

 This means that the act of force must be solely voluntary and completely upon the individuals own volition. So for example if A uses B’s hands to hit C, B is not liable to pay damages nor criminal sanctions since he did not have the right intention, intention relates to the motive of the defendant nor is it necessary that the defendant could foresee the consequences of their own action.

 (ii)                 It must be direct

 It is a basic requirement of any trespass that the injury must be direct. If the injury is indirect then the claimant must find another basis for recovery.

 (iii)               Immediate force

 The tort of battery applies to any form of bodily contact. This causes a potential problem if applied literally, it would mean any sort of contact would constitute battery, so the rubbing of shoulders on a train or the tapping of the shoulder of a stranger is in law battery. However the line had been drawn by Lord Holt C.J.’s judgement cited in the case of Cole v Turner in which it was stated ‘the least touching of another in anger is battery.’ But the fine line was clarified by the case of Wilson v Pringle in which it was stated that ‘hostile intent’ was necessary to constitute battery.

Assault

 The tort of assault protects the claimant in fear of battery, however this only occurs in both criminal and civil cases where the claimant reasonably had a cause to believe that direct and immediate force on his or her body would ensue. So to lift a knife in front a person in hope of stabbing or pointing a gun in hope of shooting are both assaults, regardless of whether you intended to cause harm to the other person, as long as they feared an attack on their person, that is good enough to constitute assault. The requirements of assault are viz.:

(i)                 Reasonable apprehension of harm

 This is the key to an assault, reasonably apprehending an attack. So if someone creeps up behind the victim and hits without their knowledge that will only constitute a battery, however if one was aware of them being hit then it would become an assault. The line between battery and assault is drawn where the victim has actual awareness of the attack.

 (ii)                It must be intentional

 This is the basic requirement of the tort and here signifies that the defendant intended the claimant to apprehend reasonable force would be used or was reckless as to the consequences of his or her actions.

 (iii)          It must be immediate and direct

 This is in conjunction to the reasonable apprehension of harm test, if the claimant has nothing to fear and realises that the defendant was not in a position to inflict immediate and direct danger, the defendant will not be liable for assault.

 However, since the case of R v Ireland the old saying that words cannot amount to an assault is incorrect. This is challenged by the above case, which was decided in the House of Lords, the case where a woman was harassed by a stalking man causing her to have fatal physical as well as psychological effects. The point in law in this case was whether the woman feared or reasonably apprehended during the circumstances that an immediate attack would ensue, and the repeated phone calls made the judges in the House of Lords realise that such fear may have arisen. So now words which may create fear of an attack could end up in both a criminal and civil case.

 Both assault and battery are quite similar in characteristics but they differ in the tests that the courts use, battery requires ‘touching of another in anger or hostility’ whereas assault requires the ‘reasonable apprehension of harm’ by the victim. Battery is probably less renowned to the lay citizen since the word assault is used to mean battery, however the consequences of both are serious leading to imprisonment and liability in paying damages. A sentence due to assault could be just as long as a sentence for committing battery.