InFagan v Metropolitan Commissioner of Police[1969] 1 QB 439 the accused accidentally (he claimed) drove his car onto the foot of a police officer after being told to pull over his car. When the officer told Fagan that he was on his foot and to move, Fagan said "F* you, you can wait" and stopped the engine.

At the moment when Fagan first drove his car onto the officer's foot (the actus reus of assault), he claimed to be unaware that he had done so. Yet a majority dismissed the defence's temporal coincidence argument and found him guilty of assault. On what basis?

Select one:

Select one:

a.

Fagan was reckless when he parked his car so close to the officer

b.

The offence of assault police is a strict liability offence and so temporal coincidence is irrelevant

c.

The court did not believe his claim that it was an accident and therefore he had intent from the outset

d.

Once Fagan became aware that he was on the officer's foot & chose to remain then he had the intention to assault the officer