A man accidentally drove his car onto a policeman’s foot and then intentionally refused to move. He was convicted of battery and his appeal was dismissed. James CJ said that battery (1) could be effected via a weapon, which in this case was a car; (2) the mens rea was superimposed on the actus reus, shown by the fact that once the car was on the policeman’s foot the ignition was switched off and stated his intention to keep the car there (3) the crime of battery was created once mens rea was superimposed onto the continuing action.
Bridge CJ disagreed with the other two judges, saying that simply there was no point at which the actus reus and mens rea coincide and that there was an intent once the guilty act was complete is irrelevant: why was the act continuing, simply because its consequences continue? The act itself, surely was complete
