LORD JUSTICE LAWS: Mr King, do you have anything to say? Oxbridge Notes is operated by Break Even LLC. The reason is that even if one takes Mr Head's submission as to the meaning of battery to be correct, and it may well be too narrow, the test is made out on the facts of this case. Can you make sure that an agreed draft in the form we have now discussed is lodged with the Court. MR HEAD: Perhaps it should be the word "contact". Chief officers | Derbyshire Constabulary . About Membership. However the children's act 2004 now means that a battery committed in a child is not lawful is it results in any injury. I have already said there is no challenge to that. In just two (a) years, (b) year's, (c) years' time, Kaitlin earned her associate's degree. The question for this Court is put in this way: 15. Derbyshire Constabulary polices an area which ranges from remote rural locations to busy city-centre and suburban environments. However that may be, as I have said, the magistrates convicted the appellant. Judgement for the case Haystead v Chief constable of Derbyshire The defendant punched a woman holding a child, causing her to drop the child and thereby cause it damage. MR HEAD: That is why it was, at best, in square bracket and probably should not have been there in the first place. The Magistrates concluded in this case that it was proved that the appellant had been reckless, and there is no challenge to that finding. 67. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. The case is concerned entirely with the proper meaning of "battery" within the context here of a common assault by beating. Costello v Derbyshire Constabulary our website you agree to our privacy policy and terms. . 47. WebSituation created by the defendant. The defendant punched a woman holding a child, causing her to drop the child and thereby cause it damage. He took with him, very foolishly, a boiling tube of concentrated acid. MR SILBER: The facts of this case highlight the problem. WebHaystead v Chief Constable Of Derbyshire (2000) High Court Queen's Bench Division. This was a case under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1961. For a Person to be Convicted of an Offence. In the third, the victim was a neighbour, Sharon Maycock. 19. - Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000] 2 Cr App R 339 - Here the movement of Miss MR K.S. 86. [5] Each division is headed by a chief superintendent - the divisional commander - and each division is divided into Sections, which are led by an inspector. Battery does not require direct application of force on the victim either through physical contact or a medium, The medium can be a person other than the victim, D punched a woman who was holding her baby, this caused the woman to drop the baby onto the floor, D was convicted of an offence of battery on the baby, D appealed on the basis that battery requires a direct application of force which involved direct physical contact with the victim or through a medium controlled by D such as a weapon, As a general point, battery did not require the direct application of force, In this case the application of force was through the mother as a medium, the mother dropped the baby as result of Ds punch, No distinction could be drawn between using the mother or a weapon as the relevant medium save that the latter involved intention and the former recklessness. 64. By using All the offences were said to have happened on 26th April 1999. . This list was updated on 19 Janurary 2008 in order to form links to any listed judgments/decisions that have been recently added to BAILII. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 21 Ex: Scott v. Shepherd. The defendant had consumed large quantities of alcohol and drugs and then attacked people in a public house and also the police officers who tried to arrest him. In fact the appellant faced three charges of assault by beating. Another boy went to the lavatory to wash his hands, turned on the dryer and the acid was injected into his face, leaving him permanently scarred. 79. The defendant in that case was convicted of unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm upon two victims in particular. [7] This decision was criticised in Haystead v DPP [8] where the Divisional court expressed the obiter opinion that battery remains a common law offence.