Trespass to Person and Intentional Torts

Trespass to Person and Intentional Torts Overview

• This is an intentional tort without specific legislation, instead having a collection of specific torts.
• There are four key areas
  • Trespass to Person
  • Rule in Wilkinson v Downtown
  • Defences to Trespass and Wilkinson
  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Trespass to the Person

• Claims related to criminal law, battery, and assault are more likely in criminal court due to lower financial risk and victim compensation.
• Sections 44-45 of the Offenses against the Person Act 1861 prevent private claims for assault and battery if the conduct is trialed at a Magistrate's Court

Why Claims Arise Under Intentional Torts

• To vindicate the right to bodily integrity and freedom from interference
• There is a lower burden of proof in civil courts ('on the balance of probabilities' vs. 'beyond reasonable doubt')
• Defendants are likely to have significant financial resources
• To seek vindication when the Crown Prosecution Service declines prosecution

Trespass to Person Overview

• Trespass to person encompasses battery, assault, and false imprisonment.
• A range of defenses apply to all trespass to person actions.

Battery Defined

• The intentional and direct application of immediate force by one individual against another.
• F v West Berkshire HA: Any touching of another's body without lawful excuse can be battery and trespass
• The tort is actionable per se, so no damage is necessary, and compensation vindicates bodily integrity.

Examples of Battery

• Include murder, Omagh bombing, rape, and touching
• Wong v Parkside NHS Trust: Deliberately digging a hole a person falls into is not a direct application of force and is not battery

Intentionality in Battery

• Transfered intent applies, deliberate action toward a person means you cannot avoid liability by being inaffective
• Fagan v Comissioner of the Metropolitan Police: Driving onto an officer's foot accidentally, but deciding to stay after notification, establishes intent through continued action

Recklessness in Battery

• Breslin & others v McKevitt & others: Recklessness is sufficient for intent, aligning civil and criminal law regarding battery

Negligence vs Intent in Battery

• Letang v Cooper: An injury from negligence cannot be claimed under trespass; proof of intentionality is required.
• Lord Denning MR stated that intentional infliction constitutes battery/assault, while negligence causing damage constitutes negligence tort

Direct Application of Force

• Courts interpret the direct application of force flexibly
• DPP v K: Hiding acid in a hand dryer was considered direct harm, representing an outer limit for battery

Immediate Force and its Character

• The scope of battery requires differentiating tortious from lawful innocent conduct
• Classic position: Any touching in anger is battery (Cole v Turner)
• Modern approaches include hostile intent, excluding everyday acceptable contact, and a broad defence of consent

Hostile Intent

• Wilson v Pringle: Hostile intent is a necessary element in battery cases.

Excluding Ordinary Conduct

• In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation): Physical conduct generally acceptable in daily life isn't considered battery
• Pranks, friendly slaps, or mistaken surgical consent may transcend lawfulness without being deemed hostile

Defining Assault

• Involves instilling reasonable fear of immediate force (battery)
• R v Ireland: Lord Hope defined assault as any intentional or reckless act causing the claimant to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
• The psychological component goes, ordinarily, hand in hand with the physical component
• It is possible for assault without battery where there is an unfulfilled threat of battery
• Assault is actionable per se without proof of damage

Intent for Assault

• Requires Intentional infliction of reasonable apprehension of direct, imminent, harmful or offensive contact.
• The immediate is imminent, not instantaneous (Smith v Chief superintendant of Woking).
• Lack of consent is a factor

Non-Physical Actions as Assault

• Silence counts as assault

Recklessness in Assault

• Bici v Ministry of Defence: Recklessness suffices if the harm to claimants is appreciated but disregarded.

Transfered Malice and Assault

• Ball v Axten: D tried hitting a farmers dog but hit the farmer instead – shows transferred malice counts as assault

Reasonable Apprehension in Assault

• Apprehension of immediate and direct harm is vital
• Successful battery without awareness lacks assault
• "Unsuccessful attempts" to commit battery that are apprehended constitutes assault
• Perception must be reasonable via an objective test

Apprehension of Threats

• Stephens v Myers: Defendant threatened violence at a meeting but was stopped; assault occurred because of the imminent threat
• Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers: Threats during a strike not immediately actionable is not assault and only actionable via nuisance

False Imprisonment

• Unlawful deprivation of the right to free movement
• There are two elements:
  • Complete restriction of free movement
  • No legal authorisation
• It Is actionable per se
• Grainger v Hill & Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd: Even if the claimant is unaware of detainment the act is still actionable

Restrictions of Movements

• Defendants must wholly confine claimant
• Blocking of a route is not complete restriction
• R. (Jalloh) v. S.S. for the Home Department: Authority on the means of confinement

Action Duration

• Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis: Even a trivial time the individual is detained is actionable

Positive Actions Necessary

• Iqbal v Prison Officers Association: Confinement must be a positive act by the detainer

Rule in Wilkinson v Downton

• Governs when harm is intentionally inflicted indirectly
• Shares the intent of protecting the person with Trespass to Person
• Has more requirements than other trespasses
  • Requires proof of damage

Wilkinson v Downton Case Facts

• Facts: someone willing makes a false representation to another, intending to do harm to them, with no justification for doing so
• Wright J: The defendant willfully acted to cause physical harm to the claimant without justification, and must be answerable if the harm was a direct consequence.

Intent in Wilkinson v Downton Cases

• Wainwright v Home Office: The defendant must act unjustifiably, intending or not caring whether harm occurs, per Lord Hoffman.
• OPO v Rhodes: A leading modern authority

Defence Against Wilkinson Cases

• The defences are:
  • Consent
  • Necessity
  • Self-defence
  • Provocation/contributory negligence
  • Lawful authority

Consent

• The burden lies on the claimant to prove a lack of consent.
• R v Williams: No fraud, misrepresentation, or duress

Consent Refusal

• Adults with healthy minds can refuse medical practice
• Children can consent to medical treatment against "parental authority" and vice versa.
• Criminal law limits consent if there is harm being done

Defences: Necessity

• Intervening allows the "defendant" to "prevent greater harm"
• Principal sphere of operation lies in medical law if patients lack capacity

Defences: Self Defence

• The defendant must show how their "conduct was reasonable" during the danger

Proactive Conduct

• Proven provocation is not a defense
• Co-operative Group Ltd v Pritchard: Contributory negligence cannot be applied to the other cases

Defences: Lawful Authority

• If in conjunction with the police " or citizens performing a capture
• R. (on the application of Lumba) v SS for the Home Department:Detaining someone should not be unlawful
• Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis: The police have to act in conformance

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

• A legislative that provides a "statutory solution that shows the problem of long term harassment"
• The act makes harrasment against the law
• If violated, consequences and injunctions

Jones v Ruth

• Court's treat damages under harassment
• Liable for all losses even if there is foreseeability

Key provisions:

• If a person commits a crime
• Liable for harassemnt of another 1A) A person must have the intent to pursuade a person from harrassment

Court Conduct

• Court has not come into a conclusion on the issue that the course of conduct must involve:
  • The cases must involve at least two occassions

Lau v Director of Public Prosecutions

• Courts rejceted to create an approach "mathematical + nexux" to create a case by case conduct. Easier the more "incidents there are".

Stalking

• Is a case that would be considered as harrasment

Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Trust"

• Authoriaitve test where"relevat conduct is included"
• Test includes: abuse + excessive critism + "deliberate isolation"

Fergusen v British Gas Trading

• Persistent sending of unhistified "bills and thetning bills"

Ruth v Jones

• Dropping homophobic comments on a garden

Subsection 1(3) Section

• If someone does not act up to the standards in society. Hayes v Willoughby Authoritative test on "the interpretation" for the conduct.