Is willingly and knowingly touching a person in public without a good reason harassment?
<p><strong>Hypothetical Situation</strong><br/>
Person A: A person with autism.<br/>
Person B: A person shooting videos for social media making fun of unsuspecting people like person A.</p>
<p>Person A is enjoying a meal in a restaurant. They're sitting at a table, not in the way of people that need to pass through. Person B sneaks behind person A and tabs person A on the shoulder while trying to keep their presence hidden.</p>
<p>Person A gets a sensory input overload due to their autism. The authorities are involved to deal with the situation. Person A wants the authorities to write a report as person A intends to sue person B for harassment.</p>
<p><strong>Question</strong><br/>
Does person A have a case in this specific situation?</p>
<p><strong>Reason for asking</strong><br/>
This is an ongoing discussion between a few people, yet none of us have the required legal knowledge to get to a conclusion. Searching up the definition of Harassment didn't help much either:</p>
<p><em>&quot;Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy), national origin, older age (beginning at age 40), disability, or genetic information (including family medical history).&quot;</em></p>
<p>Autism is a disability and touching would be unwelcome conduct. However, person A doesn't know person B suffers for this disability, yet also has no reasonable reason to touch person B as it's just for their own entertainment.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/new-south-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-new-south-wales-tooltip-container">new-south-wales</a></p>
<h2>No it's not <a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/serious-invasions-of-privacy-in-the-digital-era-alrc-report-123/15-harassment/criminal-offences-for-harassment/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">harassment</a></h2>
<blockquote>
<p>State and territory laws criminalise stalking. These offences often target behaviour amounting to harassment</p>
<p>There are also state and territory offences that capture harassment at work, in family or domestic contexts, and in schools and other educational institutions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&quot;Harassment&quot; requires a pattern of behaviour which is missing from your example.</p>
<h2>It's probably the tort of <a href="https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/civil/intentional_torts.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">battery</a></h2>
<blockquote>
<p>A battery is a voluntary and positive act, done with the intention of causing contact with another, that directly causes that contact: Barker et al at p 36. See <em>Carter v Walker</em> (2010) 32 VR 1 at [215] for a summary of the definition of “battery”.</p>
<p>The requisite intention for battery is simply this: the defendant must have intended the consequence of the contact with the plaintiff. The defendant need not know the contact is unlawful. He or she need not intend to cause harm or damage as a result of the contact.</p>
<p>The modern position, however, is that hostile intent or angry state of mind are not necessary to establish battery: <em>Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd</em>, above, at [52]. It is for that reason that a medical procedure carried out without the patient’s consent may be a battery.</p>
<p>On the other hand, it is not every contact that will be taken to be a battery. People come into physical contact on a daily basis. For example it is impossible to avoid contact with other persons in a crowded train or at a popular sporting or concert event. The inevitable “jostling” that occurs in these incidents in every day life is simply not actionable as a battery: Rixon at [53]–[54]; <em>Colins v Wilcock</em> [1984] 3 All ER 374 per Robert Goff LJ.</p>
</blockquote>

harassment