A policeman told the defendant to park his vehicle near the curb. He continued driving his vehicle right up to the constable’s foot. ‘Get off, you’re on my foot,’ the policeman replied.”‘Fuck you, you can wait,’ the defendant said, turning off the engine. He was found guilty of assaulting a constable in the course of his duty by the magistrates, and his appeal was dismissed by the Quarter Sessions, who were unsure whether the driving on the foot was intentional or accidental but was satisfied that he was guilty of “allowing the car to remain on the foot knowingly, unnecessarily, and provocatively.”

The issue arising, which has been discussed on broad principles, falls to be resolved on the circumstances of the specific instance, according to James J [with whom Lord Parker CJ agreed]. An assault is any act that causes another person to fear imminent and illegal physical harm, whether it is done deliberately or negligently. Although “assault” is a separate crime that must be handled as such, the word “assault” is now often used interchangeably with the term “battery.” and refers to the intentional use of illegal force against another person without his permission. In the circumstances of this case, the claimed ‘attack’ included an “a battery When a battery is engaged in an attack, it makes no difference to us whether the battery is inflicted directly on the offender’s body or via the use of a weapon or instrument controlled by the offender’s conduct.

An assault may be committed by laying a hand on another person, and the conduct does not cease to be an assault if the victim is hit with a stick held in the hand rather than the victim’s hand. As a result, we perceive no difference in principle between walking on a person’s toe and keeping that position and driving a vehicle on a person’s foot and riding in the car while it maintains its position on the foot.

A deliberate act must have been committed for this to be considered an assault; a simple failure to act cannot be considered an attack. Without getting into the debate over whether words alone may constitute an attack, it is obvious that the appellant’s statements can not constitute an assault in and of themselves; they can only throw light on the appellant’s actions.

For our part, we believe the key issue is whether the appellant’s conduct was complete and spent when the vehicle wheel came to rest on the foot, or whether it was a continuous act that continued until the wheel was withdrawn. A difference should be made, in our opinion, between actions that are completed but the consequences may continue to flow, and those that are ongoing.

Once the act is completed, it may no longer be considered a threat to use illegal force against the victim. There is a continuous danger of inflicting illegal force if the conduct, as opposed to the consequences thereof, is an ongoing act. There is a continuous act of assault if the attack includes a battery, and the battery continues. Both the components of actus reus and men’s rea must be present at the same moment for an attack to be committed. The action that causes the impact on the victim’s mind is known as the actus reus: see Parke B’s remarks in Rv St George [(1840) 9C & P 483 at 490, 493]. The intention of producing such a result is known as themes rea.’ Men’s rea does not have to be present at the start of the actus reus; it may be layered on top of an existing act. The later emergence of men’s rea, on the other hand, cannot turn an act performed without men’s rea into an attack.

The justices at Willesden and quarter sessions were, in our opinion, correct in law. According to the facts discovered, the appellant’s actions may have been unintentional at first, but when he realised the wheel was on the officer’s foot, he remained seated in the car so that his body was in contact with the officer through the medium of the car, (ii) turned off the car’s ignition, (iii) kept the car’s wheel on the officer’s foot, and (iv) used words indicative of We, for one, cannot dismiss such behaviour as a simple omission or inaction. There was an act that constituted a battery that was not illegal at the outset because there was no element of purpose, but that became criminal after the intention was established to induce the fear that flowed from the ongoing conduct. The appellant’s argument is flawed because it attempts to compare the circumstances of this case to those of a driver who has inadvertently run over a person and then fails to help the victim to cause the victim to suffer.

This appeal would be dismissed.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge