Brad v Ada and Connie v Ada Assault Brad and Connie may have an action of assault against Ana. To obtain damages, Brad and Connie have to demonstrate that there was an intentional act or threat that directly places them in reasonable apprehension of imminent contact due to the direct acts of the defendant. In Rixon v Star City Casino Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 98 (“Rixon”), assault requires proof of an intention to create in Brad’s and Connie’s apprehension of imminent physical interference but does not require an intention to actually cause physical interference to them.
In this context, the act of throwing the ‘throw down’ onto the ground is intentional. Ana would argue that she had no intention to harm any when she threw the device. However, in Scott v Shepherd (1973) 96 ER 525 (“Scott”), throwing ‘throw down’ is an unlawful act. A mischief has intended by Ana which result in trespass. Hence, Ana is most likely to be convicted from assault as she intends to raise apprehension in both Brad and Connie and both of them had experienced the apprehension by “immediately jumping apart trying to get away… “: Macpherson v Beath (1975) 12 SASR 174.
Aggravated damage is most likely to be awarded as a compensation of getting shocked. Desi v Connie Battery Desi may have an action of battery against Connie. By landing on Desi’s foot heavily is likely to exhibit that there is a physical and direct contact towards Desi. In Brady v Schatzel [1991] St R Qd 206, battery is actionable per se. It does not require any intention to cause any harm and to convict Connie of battery. It was also stated in Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237, the act that causes the application of force to the body of the plaintiff is the relevant intentional act.
Connie need not to have the intention to harm Desi, as the intention only relate to the voluntary act to apply the force onto the body of Desi. For Desi to be successful in his battery claim, Desi must demonstrate that there was an intentional negligent act which directly causes physical interference with the body of Desi. However, it would much likely for Connie to argue that there is no intentional to harm Desi. She had no intention to apply any force upon Desi, she was just shocked by the ‘throw down’ that was flung by Ana.
The self defence that most likely used by Connie is it was an inevitable accident and involuntary for her to apply force by stepping on Desi’s foot. Hence, Desi is most likely to fail to convict Connie for battery as in the context of the situation, Connie was just protecting herself and is an involuntary act when a ‘throw down’ was activated between her and Brad. Fee v Desi Battery Fee may convict Desi for battery with the direct act of punching his eye. Fee has to demonstrate that Desi’s act must interfere with physical contact with fault. In this context, punching Fee in the eye is a direct and physical contact.
However, Desi would argue that the direct contact is caused without any intention as at that point, Desi was struggling for balance after getting stepped by Connie. If this would likely to be a successful argument by Desi, instead of convicting Desi from battery to Fee, the initial instigator of the event which is the thrower of the ‘throw down’, Ana, is likely to be pursued instead. In the case of Scott , the action of the third parties caused by the first thrower can be said to be involuntary and the third parties were just acting under a compulsive necessity for their own safety and elf-preservation.
In the context, both Connie and Desi were acting under a compulsive necessity. Hence, the conviction would likely to be pursue to Ana for her initial act. Thus, it is less likely for Fee to convict Desi for battery. Desi v Graeme Battery Desi may have an action of battery against Graeme. To be successful in his claim, Desi must demonstrate that there was an intentional negligent act which directly causes physical ference with the body of the plaintiff. In the context, there was an intentional and physical interference towards Desi by grabbing Desi’s arm and pull him closer to him.
It was intentional as Graeme wanted Desi to follow him and Hetty to the on-site Security Office in order to calm the crowd and chaotic scene. Even though this act is accompanied by fault, but Graeme may likely to argue that he has the right to calm the crowd as a security guard. This argument by Graeme is most likely to be successful with the support from the case Rixon, Lord Goff said: “people may be subjected to the lawful exercise of the power of arrest; and reasonable force may be used in self-defence or for the prevention of crime. Hence, Graeme would be likely to argue that although there was intentional and physical interference action towards Desi, the act was still lawful as he has the right to carry out such act with the purpose of calming the crowd. Thus, Desi will be most likely to fail to convict Graeme for battery. Assault Desi may have an action of assault against Graeme. For an action in assault, Desi must demonstrate that there was intentional or threat of Graeme that directly occur in reasonable apprehension of harm in the mind of Desi :Barton v Armstrong [1969] 2 NSWLR 451 (“Barton”).
By speaking with threatening voice to Desi is likely to exhibit an apprehension of imminent contact and harm towards Desi. Whilst Graeme could argue that he had no intention to harm Desi as at that situation, he just want Desi to follow him to the security office and to calm the crowd. However, in Read v Coker (1853) 138 ER 1437, words spoken between parties in each other’s presence may constitute assault. This statement could also be supported in the case Police v Greaves [1964] NZLR 295 shows that a conditional threat of violence is an assault.
Hence, Graeme would most likely to be convicted from assault as he had threatened Desi and had caused Desi to believe, afraid and decided to follow nim. Aggravated or nominal damages may be awarded. Desi v Hetty and Desi v Graeme False imprisonment Desi may have an action against Graeme and Hetty for false imprisonment. For a successful false imprisonment action, Desi have to demonstrate that there was a direct intentional act that causes total deprivation of freedom. However, Graeme and Hetty must establish lawful justification.
The action of grabbing Desi’s hand is a direct intentional act by Graeme when he asked him to go to the Security Office. In Myer Stores Ltd v Soo [1991] 2 VR 597, Desi had subjectively believed that he had to go with them to the Security Office . He had no direction or paced of walk as he walked between Graeme and Hetty. Onus is on Graeme to demonstrate that they were lawfully justified in detaining Desi: Rixon. However, in the context, Desi was wrongfully detained as he was not the initial instigator. Desi was released quickly when Fee and other friends approached Graeme, telling him what had actually happened.
Based on the fact, due to the wrongfully detention, Graeme might be convicted. However, as he released Desi in a short time, Desi is likely to fail from convicting Graeme for false imprisonment. lan v Ana Assault lan may have an action of assault against Ana. To be successful for the claim of damages, lan have to demonstrate that there was an intentional or reckless act by Ana placing lan in reasonable apprehension of imminent or harmful contact: Barton. By sending lan furious text messages, threatening him for laughing her could be convicted as assault.
In Slaveski v State of Victoria [2010] VSC 441, sending threat messages through telephone, by email or other electronic sources can be convicted as assault as there is no rule preventing a threat of physical harm without accompanied with physical contact. Hence, the action of sending furious text messages to lan by Ana is most likely to be convicted as an assault. Besides that, in Fogden v Wad [1945] NZLR 724, the act of following lan from a distance was an assault as it accompanied with immoral suggestion and intention to harm him when he was alone walking back.
Ana could argue that she had no intention to harm lan as she wandered home after she went bored sending lan’s messages. However, Zanker v Vartzokas (1988) 34 A Crim R 11 shows that Ana’s assault is viable as the material factor is the effect on lan’s mind, but not Ana’s intention. Ana is likely to be convicted from assault as her threatening messages and behaviour had caused lan to be distress. Aggravated and compensatory damages may be awarded for the distress caused by Ana arising from the tort.