【正文】 s action was therefore in self defence and D’s conviction was quashed(撤銷).Rule: unless there is an arrest, officer cannot use physical force to hold a suspect, and such force may constitute tort of batterySidaway v. Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors (1985 HLs)Facts:Claimant suffered persistent pain in her neck, right shoulder, and arms.Claimant consented to the neurosurgeon’s remended treatment of cervical cord depression. Doctor did tell her even if the operation properly performed, risk of disturbing a nerve root/consequences. But doctor not explain the fact that in less than 1% of the cases, the depression treatment caused spinal cord damage, paraplegia. Doctor also not informed the plaintiff that this was an operation of choice or elective operation“ (she didn’t need to have it)Plaintiff patient developed paraplegia after the spinal operationCasebook:Mrs Siddeway suffered persisitent pain in her right arm and shoulder and a surgeon employed by the defendants remended an operation to her spine to which Mrs sidawat consented. The operation involved a risk,put at least 1%, of damage to the spine and Mrs Sidawat was not informed of the risk ,The operation was properly conducted but unfortunately the risk materialized and the clainmanr became severely sue the defendants on the groud that surgeon had failed to inform her of riskHeld:dismissing the appeal ,that the defendant were not liable.Rule and notable points of law:Unlike US law, in English law consent not vitiated by the failure of the doctor to give the patient sufficient information before the consent is givenOnly if the consent is obtained by fraud or by misrepresentation it could be said that consent is not a true consent, allow battery Patient’s consent must still be real: to be real patient should be told enough about the treatment to understand what will be