This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InternetArchiveBot(talk | contribs) at 18:24, 25 July 2020(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:24, 25 July 2020 by InternetArchiveBot(talk | contribs)(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.1)
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. The specific problem is: Article fails to state jurisdiction. The cites are poor quality (legal essay paper mill). Significance and circumstances of case/appeal/decision of Law Lord not established. Emphasis error in that Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley in Collins v. Wilcock established current definitions & case is listed in 'important decisions' in Goff's WP article.. When placing this tag, consider associating this request with a WikiProject.(September 2016)
Collins v. Wilcock (1984) was a case of trespass to the person focusing on battery. Expanding on Lord Holt's definition of intent in Cole v. Turner, Collins v. Wilcock narrowed the law.[1] “An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly harms someone indirectly. A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly harms someone directly." But it also says this: “An offense of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.” It notes that the only distinction between common assault and causing actual bodily harm (under section 47 of the Offenses against the Person Act 1861) is the degree of injury.[2]
