Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1969]
Share
Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1969] 1 QB 439 is a notable legal decision that dealt with the concept of assault and the interaction between actus reus and mens rea.
Fagan, the defendant, was sitting in his car when a police officer instructed him to move the vehicle. Fagan complied but accidentally rolled his car onto the foot of the police officer. Despite being told to move the car, Fagan refused, swore at the officer, and turned off the engine. Fagan was subsequently convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty and appealed the decision.
Fagan appealed on the grounds that there cannot be an assault in the form of an omission (failure to act), and that the act of driving onto the officer's foot was accidental, suggesting a lack of mens rea at the time of the act causing damage. The central legal issue revolved around whether the prosecution had proven facts amounting to an assault, where both actus reus and mens rea must be present simultaneously.
The court rejected Fagan's appeal, emphasising that assault is an independent crime and should be treated as such. However, the court acknowledged that, for practical purposes, assault is often synonymous with battery. In this case, the court held that Fagan's criminal act was not merely the initial act of refusing to move the car, but rather his decision to continue the act of battery by leaving the car on the officer's foot after driving onto it.
The court concluded that Fagan's crime constituted a continual act of battery, and since both actus reus and mens rea were present during this ongoing act, an assault was deemed to have been committed. Therefore, Fagan's conviction for assaulting a police officer was upheld. This case illustrates the importance of considering the continuous nature of certain acts in determining the existence of both elements (actus reus and mens rea) required for criminal liability.
Fagan, the defendant, was sitting in his car when a police officer instructed him to move the vehicle. Fagan complied but accidentally rolled his car onto the foot of the police officer. Despite being told to move the car, Fagan refused, swore at the officer, and turned off the engine. Fagan was subsequently convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty and appealed the decision.
Fagan appealed on the grounds that there cannot be an assault in the form of an omission (failure to act), and that the act of driving onto the officer's foot was accidental, suggesting a lack of mens rea at the time of the act causing damage. The central legal issue revolved around whether the prosecution had proven facts amounting to an assault, where both actus reus and mens rea must be present simultaneously.
The court rejected Fagan's appeal, emphasising that assault is an independent crime and should be treated as such. However, the court acknowledged that, for practical purposes, assault is often synonymous with battery. In this case, the court held that Fagan's criminal act was not merely the initial act of refusing to move the car, but rather his decision to continue the act of battery by leaving the car on the officer's foot after driving onto it.
The court concluded that Fagan's crime constituted a continual act of battery, and since both actus reus and mens rea were present during this ongoing act, an assault was deemed to have been committed. Therefore, Fagan's conviction for assaulting a police officer was upheld. This case illustrates the importance of considering the continuous nature of certain acts in determining the existence of both elements (actus reus and mens rea) required for criminal liability.
