Divisional Court Cases
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836903300103 |
| Published date | 01 January 1969 |
| Date | 01 January 1969 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional
Court
Cases
ASSAULT BY INTENTIONALLY PROLONGING ACCIDENTAL
BATTERY
Fagan
v.
Metropolitan
Police
Commissioner
THI S case (19683
All
E.R. 442) raised an interesting
and
unusual
legal problem.
The
defendant, while driving amotor-car, was
stopped by a police officer for the purpose
of
requiring him to produce
documents relating to his driving.
The
defendant stopped first in
the middle of the carriageway.
The
officer directed him to a suitable
parking place against the kerb.
The
defendant drove his
car
to a
position where it was a substantial distance from the kerb.
The
officer then took up a position about ayard ahead
of
the defendant's
car
and
pointed out where he wanted the defendant to park. In
taking up the required position the defendant drove his vehicle so
that
the front offside wheel
ran
on to the officer's left foot.
The
officer
said
"Get
off, you are on my foot". This request was met with obscene
abuse from the defendant who added
"You
can wait".
The
defendant
either turned off the ignition or the engine stalled. After the officer
had
more than once repeated his request to the defendant to get off
his foot the defendant very slowly switched on the ignition
and
reversed the vehicle. As a result
of
the defendant's conduct the
officer's left big toe was swollen
and
bruised.
The
defendant was charged
and
convicted by Willesden justices
with assaulting the officer in the execution
of
his duty contrary to
s.51
of
the Police Act 1964.
The
defendant appealed to Middlesex
Quarter
Sessions against his conviction.
The
appeal was dismissed,
but
Quarter
Sessionsstated a case for the opinion
of
the High Court,
in which they found the facts summarised above. They further
found
that
there was insufficient evidence to show whether the
original act
of
the defendant in driving on to the officer's foot was
deliberate or accidental.
Quarter
Sessions
had
given as their reason
for upholding the conviction
that
the defendant has "knowingly,
provocatively
and
unnecessarily "allowed the wheel
of
the motor-car
to remain on the officer's foot after he
had
been told to move the
car
off it.
The
case came before a Divisional Court consisting
of
Lord
Parker
C.j.,
James
and
Bridge
Jj.
The
appeal was argued on the
28
June
1968
and
the IJuly, judgment being reserved until the 31
9
To continue reading
Request your trial