Menu:

Collins v Wilcock

Mentioned in Source 4.

Facts and Desisions

A police officer was liable for battery when she held a suspects arm, but did not arrest her. Lord Goff felt that the test was 'whether or not the contact was acceptable within the conduct of normal life'. (source 4, lines 23-25)

How did it change the law?

This case expanded on Lord Holts definition of intent in Cole v Turner and therefore narrowed the law (source 4, lines 4-6)

Has it achieved justice in the law?

This is unfair on the defendant, who was probably just trying to do her job, yet fair on the defendant who has the right to not be touched, unless there is legal jutification.

What is its significance for the developments of the law?

Following Collins v Wilcock was Wilson v Pringle in which Lord Croom-Johnson disagreed stating that Cole v Turner had meant hostility, when defining intent. (source 4, lines 6-16) However Lord Goff, later in the case of Re F and after moving to the House of Lords, restated his views. (source 4,lines 25-33) As this case was also in a higher court it is now the leading case.

References to other cases.

Re F, Cole v Turner, Wilson v Pringle