The plaintiff was injured when a soldier fired a baton round after some soldiers were attacked by rioters. The round had been deliberately fired, but not to strike the plaintiff. The claim was in negligence and assault and battery. The trial judge dismissed the claim in negligence but did not give a ruling on the question of battery.
Held: The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, rejecting the argument that there could be no battery because the plaintiff was not the chosen target: ‘In my judgment when a soldier deliberately fires at one rioter intending to strike him and he misses him and hits another rioter nearby, the soldier has ‘intentionally’ applied force to the rioter who has been struck. Similarly if a soldier fires a rifle bullet at a rioter intending to strike him and the bullet strikes that rioter and passes through his body and wounds another rioter directly behind the first rioter, whom the soldier had not seen, both rioters have been ‘intentionally’ struck by the soldier and, assuming that the force used was not justified, the soldier has committed a battery against both.’
Judges:
Hutton J
Citations:
[1984] NILR 356
Cited by:
Cited – Bici and Bici v Ministry of Defence QBD 7-Apr-2004
Claimants sought damages for personal injuries incurred when, in Pristina, Kosovo and during a riot, British soldiers on a UN peacekeeping expedition fired on a car.
Held: The incidents occurred in the course of peace-keeping duties. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Northern Ireland, Armed Forces
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.198140
