Fagan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1968] EWHC 1 (QB), [1969] 1 QB 439, (1968) 52 Cr App R 700
- Court: England and Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
- Judgment Date: 31 July 1968
- Judges: Lord Parker C.J., James and Bridge JJ.
- Area of Law: Criminal Law – Assault and Battery
The case of Fagan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1968] EWHC 1 (QB) is a foundational case in English criminal law, particularly in relation to the concepts of actus reus (the wrongful act of a crime) and mens rea (the mental intention to commit a crime). Here are the key points and principles established by the case.
Facts (Fagan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis)
The appellant, Vincent Martel Fagan, accidentally drove his car onto a police officer’s foot while being directed to park. When the officer told him to remove the car, Fagan refused, used offensive language, and delayed moving the car. The court had to determine whether Fagan’s actions constituted an assault.
Legal Issues
Was the act of driving onto the officer’s foot an assault? – Initially, the act may have been unintentional and lacked mens rea.
Did Fagan’s refusal to move the car transform the situation into an assault? – This required considering whether the act was “continuing” and whether the mens rea could arise during the act.
Key Legal Principles Established (Fagan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis)
Continuing Act Doctrine:
The court distinguished between acts that are complete and those that are continuing. If the actus reus continues, mens rea can be superimposed at any point during the act. In this case, the act of the car wheel being on the officer’s foot was deemed a continuing act. By refusing to remove the car, Fagan formed the necessary intention (mens rea), thus completing the offence.
No Assault from Omission Alone:
The court emphasized that a mere omission (failure to act) cannot constitute an assault. However, Fagan’s conduct was not considered mere omission but rather a continuation of his initial act.
Mens Rea and Actus Reus Coincidence:
For an assault to occur, actus reus and mens rea must coincide. The court found that they did in this case once Fagan knowingly allowed the car to remain on the officer’s foot.
Judgment
Majority Decision:
Fagan’s actions constituted a battery (a form of assault). The act was initially unintentional but became criminal when Fagan chose to let the car remain on the officer’s foot with knowledge of its position.
Appeal dismissed.
Dissenting Opinion (Bridge J.):
Justice Bridge dissented, reasoning that the appellant’s actions after the wheel initially came to rest on the officer’s foot did not constitute an act that could qualify as assault. He viewed the situation as a failure to act rather than a continuing act.
He said:
“After the wheel of the appellant’s car had accidentally come to rest on the constable’s foot, what was it that the appellant did which constituted the act of assault? However the question is approached, the answer I feel obliged to give is: precisely nothing.”
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed, and Fagan’s conviction was upheld.
Significance
This case is pivotal in criminal law for illustrating the interplay between actus reus and mens rea in determining liability. It can be cited to illustrate the “continuing act” principle. It beautifully shows how the thin line between accident and offence blurs once intent comes into the picture.
References:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1968/1.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CRIMINAL LAW: