Question

Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer. 

Legal Principle:
1. The battery is the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.
2. When lawfully exercising the power of arrest or some other statutory power a police officer had greater rights than an ordinary citizen to restrain another.
Factual Situation: Two police officers on duty in a police car observed two women in the street who appeared to be soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. One of the women was known to the police as a prostitute but the other, X, was not a known prostitute. When the police officers requested X to get into the car for questioning she refused to do so and instead walked away from the car. One of the officers, a policewoman, got out of the car and followed X in order to question her regarding her identity and conduct and to caution her, if she was suspected of being a prostitute, in accordance with the approved police procedure for administering cautions for suspicious behaviour before charging a woman with being a prostitute. X refused to speak to the policewoman and walked away, whereupon the policewoman took hold of X's arm to detain her. X then swore at the policewoman and scratched the officer's arm with her fingernails. X was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty. She appealed against the conviction, contending that when the assault occurred the officer was not exercising her power of arrest and was acting beyond the scope of her duty in detaining X by taking hold of her arm. The police contended that the officer was acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred because the officer had good cause to detain X for the purpose of questioning her to see whether a caution for suspicious behaviour should be administered. Decide whether the police officer is liable for battery. 

Decision:

विकल्प

• X is liable for trespass on the person of a police officer while performing her official duty.

• The policewoman had not been exercising her power of arrest when she detained X, and since in taking hold of the appellant's arm to detain her the police woman's conduct went beyond acceptable lawful physical contact between two citizens, hence the officer's actions constituted a battery on X and that she had not been acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred. 

• The fact that the reason the police officer detained X  was to caution her regarding her suspicious behaviour renders the officer's conduct lawful if in detaining her she used a degree of physical contact that went beyond lawful physical contact as between two ordinary citizens. 

• The police officer was on duty and performing her duty in the regular course of the work so she is not liable for battery.

Answer 1

The policewoman had not been exercising her power of arrest when she detained X, and since in taking hold of the appellant's arm to detain her the police woman's conduct went beyond acceptable lawful physical contact between two citizens, hence the officer's actions constituted a battery on X and that she had not been acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred. 

Explanation:

The policewoman had not been exercising her power of arrest when she detained X, and since intaking hold of the appellant's arm to detain her the policewoman's conduct went beyond acceptable lawful physical contact between two citizens, hence the officer's actions constituted a battery on X and that she had not been acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred. The policewoman trespassed into the comfortable personal space of X by holding X's arm which is an unacceptable act between two citizens. The policewoman was not exercising her power of arrest and was acting beyond her duty.