| 单词 | Battery |
| 释义 | 歐打 Physical interference with another person. Criminal law - The reckless or intentional application of force to another person without consent, lawful excuse, or justification: DPP v Morgan [1975] 2 All ER 347, [1976] AC 182 (HL). The force must be directly applied to the person: Fagan v Metropolitan Police Cmr [1968] 3 All ER 422, [1969] 1 QB 439. A battery can be a continuing act, so that a lawful touching may become unlawful: Fagan v Metropolitan Police Cmr, supra. Touching in the ordinary course of life would not be a battery because it would not be accompanied by the required state of mind or hostility: Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374, 1 WLR 1172. Consent could be a defence to battery: R v William Ryan Erisman [1988] 1 HKLR 370 (HC). The act constituting the battery and the state of mind required must coincide in time: Fagan v Metropolitan Police Cmr, supra. This offence is now known as ‘assault’, although the common law originally viewed assault and battery as two separate offences: Offences Against the Person Ordinance (Cap 212) s 40; R v Taylor and Little [1992] 1 All ER 299, 95 Cr App Rep 28. See also Assault; Recklessness. Tort - A trespass to the person consisting in an intentional act that directly causes a physical interference with the body of the plaintiff, without lawful justification or the plaintiff’s consent. The defendant must intend to apply force against the plaintiff, but need not intend to harm or injure the plaintiff. It may be effected through other means, for example, by shooting the victim with a gun: Pursell v Horn (1838) 8 Ad & El 602. A hostile motive is generally not required but in cases of trivial interference it helps to establish the absence of the plaintiff’s consent. A battery is actionable per se (without proof of damage): Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374, 1 WLR 1172. See also Assault; Intentional act; Trespass to the person. 對他人作出人身侵擾。 刑法 - 在沒有同意、合法辯解或理由的情況下，一人罔顧後果或蓄意地對另一人施以武力：DPP v Morgan [1975] 2 All ER 347, [1976] AC 182 （上議院）。必須直接向有關的人施以武力：Fagan v Metropolitan Police Cmr [1968] 3 All ER 422, [1969] 1 QB 439。毆打可以是持續的行為，因而合法的接觸可成為非法的接觸：Fagan v Metropolitan Police Cmr, 見上文。日常生活中的接觸不會構成毆打，因為沒有所需的思想狀態或敵意： Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374, 1 WLR 1172。可以同意作為毆打的抗辯：R v William Ryan Erisman [1988] 1 HKLR 370 （高等法院）。構成毆打的行為和所需的思想狀態必須同時發生：Fagan v Metropolitan Police Cmr, 見上文。儘管普通法原本視襲擊和毆打為兩項各別罪行，但此等罪行現稱「襲擊」： 《侵害人身罪條例》（第 212章） 第 40條; R v Taylor and Little [1992] 1 All ER 299, 95 Cr App Rep 28。另見 Assault; Recklessness。 侵權法 - 侵犯他人的行為，在無合法理由或原告人的同意之下，直接導致原告人的身體遭受實質的干擾的蓄意行為。被告人必須意圖對原告人使用武力，但無須存有傷害或損害原告人的意圖。可透過其他途徑造成歐打，例如使用槍械射擊受害人：Pursell v Horn (1838) 8 Ad & El 602。一般來說，無須存有敵意動機，但就微不足道的干擾而言，敵意動機有助證明原告人沒有同意。毆打是不需證明特別損失而可起訴的侵權行為﹕Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374, 1 WLR 1172。另見 Assault; Intentional act; Trespass to the person。n. |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。