Assault, Battery & False Imprisonment PDF

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE Trespass to Person: Assault, Battery & False Imprisonment Dr. Sujata Arya Dr. Ananya Sharma Ms. Shuruthi J  Kinds of Trespass to Person 1. Assault 2. Battery 3. False Imprisonment 4. Defamation 5. Malicious Prosecution La...

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE Trespass to Person: Assault, Battery & False Imprisonment Dr. Sujata Arya Dr. Ananya Sharma Ms. Shuruthi J  Kinds of Trespass to Person 1. Assault 2. Battery 3. False Imprisonment 4. Defamation 5. Malicious Prosecution Lawful Justifications Damages  Trespass is an area of criminal law or tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land. Generally, trespass to the person consists of torts: assault, battery and false imprisonment.  Types of Torts There are a variety of torts, which can broadly be broken into the following three categories: - Negligent torts Negligent torts, as their name suggests, are torts that are caused by the negligence of the tortfeasor i.e., person who commits the tort. - Intentional torts Intentional torts, also as their name Strict liability torts Strict liability torts are torts where the law has determined that some activities are so dangerous that an individual engaging in those activities is liable for damages regardless of intent or negligence resulting in harm.  A tort is a harmful act that causes damages to another. Many tort cases involve simple negligence, which means that the defendant failed to use the level of care that a reasonable person would use in the same situation. For example, in the case of a car accident caused by a distracted driver, the defendant (the driver) failed to drive in a responsible and reasonable way, which resulted in the accident. In this case, the plaintiff (the accident victim) would be eligible for personal injury damage compensation. An intentional tort happens when a person: 1) Intended the physical consequences of his or her action and 2) Knew, or should have known, that the consequences were substantially certain to occur as a result of that action. Example: Mr. Karl gets into a fight with his mechanic, and the mechanic, in a moment of rage (Mr. Karl is a real jerk) punches Mr. Karl in the nose. Mr. Karl gets a bloody nose. Was that an intentional tort? Answer: Yes, it was. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t mean to give Mr. Karl a bloody ⮚Fowler v Lanning (1959) ⮚Trespass to the person does not lie if the injury to the plaintiff was caused unintentionally and without negligence on the defendant's part. ⮚Direct act causing harm- insufficient  Letang v. Cooper (1965) Plaintiff was sunbathing- car ran over causing injury to her legs- 3 years later she brought an action- for damage caused due to loss and injury; she claimed 1. Negligence and, 2. trespass to person The court held that when injury is inflicted negligently and not intentionally, the only cause of action is negligence and not trespass. Unintentional invasions have been eclipsed by the tort of trespass. If one man intentionally applies force directly to another, the plaintiff has a cause of action in assault or battery. If he does not intentionally inflict injury, but only unintentionally, the plaintiff has no cause of action in trespass; his only cause of action is in negligence. Therefore, the only cause of action in the present case – where the injury was unintentional – is negligence, which is barred by the limitation period – Defendant was successful.  Assault:- Under the statutes of various common law jurisdiction, assault is both a crime and a tort. Generally, a person commits criminal assault if he purposely , knowingly , or recklessly inflicts bodily injury upon another , if he inflicts bodily injury upon another by means of dangerous weapon; or if through physical menace, he places another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, unreasonable fear. Sec. 130 of BNS, 2023 defines  Section 130, BNS, 2023 : “Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.” Explanation.—Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his Illustration Mathew v State of Kerala; (1992) 2 Ker LJ 361. A takes up a stick saying to Z, “ I will give you a beating”. The words used by A, was accompanied by a gesture of taking up a stick. Hence, it amounts to assault.  Both civil and criminal in nature Criminal proceedings do not bar civil action  Essentials of assault include :- Intent , Apparently ability to carry out the purpose , Apprehension , Knowledge of threat. Stephen v Myers (1830) The claimant was chairing a meeting at a local parish. The defendant sat at the other end of the table. The discussion became very heated. A motion was carried out by large majority that defendant should be turned out of the The defendant got out of his chair and told the claimant that he would ‘rather pull the chairman out of the chair, than be turned out of the room’. He then advanced on the claimant shaking his fist. Witnesses thought that the defendant’s intent was to hit the claimant. However, he was stopped by the churchwarden before he got near enough to strike. The claimant sued the defendant for assault. The defendant argued that it  The court held that the defendant’s words and actions would constitute an assault if the defendant had the means to carry out his threat. This would be the case if the defendant was advancing in a threatening manner such that his blow would have reached the claimant had he not been stopped by a third-party. The jury gave their verdict for the claimant, finding that the defendant had committed an assault.  Tuberville v. Savage (1669) A man placed his hand on his sword and told another, “If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language.” The justices of assize were in town. Issues: The question was as to whether laying a hand on a sword and stating “If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language,” constituted an The Court held that an assault requires both: (1) the intention and (2) the act of assault. Accordingly, the Court held that the facts did not give rise to assault as the man merely stipulated that he would have the intention to assault if it were not assize-time. It was, indeed, assize-time and the man’s declaration expressly stipulated that he would not and did not intend to commit an assault. Thus, there could have been no assault as there were no intention nor act of  Read v Coker (1853) The plaintiff (i.e. the claimant) was in the defendant's shop to resolve a dispute and the defendant said that he wanted the plaintiff to leave, but the plaintiff refused. So the defendant and others in the shop surrounded the plaintiff, rolled up their sleeves, and said if he doesn't leave they will break Fearing that the men would injure him, claimant left and subsequently filed an action for assault against defendant. It was held that it was a case of Assault. There was a threat of violence exhibiting an intention, and a present ability to carry the threat Bavisetti Venkata Surya Rao v. Nandipati Muttayya (1964) The defendant, a Village Munsif, in order to recover land revenue, threatened to distrain the earrings that the plaintiff was wearing. Village Goldsmith was called to evaluate the value of the gold, while during that time, someone paid off the land revenue that the plaintiff owed. Held: The defendant is not liable for Assault Since, he did not put the plaintiff under the fear of immediate violence or instant violence Can words constitute Assault? R v Meade and Belt (1823) Traditionally words alone were not sufficient to amount to an assault No words or singing are equivalent to an assault The proposition is that words alone, unaccompanied by physical gestures, cannot amount to an  However, Conduct accompanying words make the words an assault. R v Constanza (1997) For a period of almost two years, a man followed the women home from work, made numerous silent phone calls, wrote her over 800 letters, drove past her house, visited her house without consent, and  Following these actions, she received two additional letters with threatening language. She was soon diagnosed by a doctor as suffering from clinical depression and anxiety due to apprehended fear caused by the man’s actions and letters. The Court stipulated that words alone can constitute an assault, A CASE OF ASSAULT? D points a gun at P. D knows that the gun is not loaded and has no motive of harming P. However, P believes the gun is loaded, and believes that D is about to shoot him. D has committed an Assault because he put P in reasonable apprehension of harmful contact, BATTER Y  BATTERY Battery requires actual physical contact with the body of another person so a seizing hold of a person so as to restrain him; spitting in the face; throwing water over a person; taking a person by the collar; Causing a person to be medically examined against their will  Cole v Turner (1704) ‘The least touching of another in anger is a battery. If two or more meet in a narrow passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touches the other gently, it is no battery. If any of them use violence against the other, to force his way in a rude inordinate manner, it is a battery; or any struggle about  If any physical contact could constitute battery, or if there must be an element of violence present. What mental states and actions constitute battery when one person touches another? A battery is a close-proximity violent or touch. A mild touch performed in close proximity and without intent does not  The courts will only go on to consider whether there has been an 'intentional' act if there is a 'voluntary' act on the part of the defendant. Voluntary here means that the defendant must consciously bring about the bodily movement for which he is being held liable.  So, if a sleepwalker stepped on your face while you were lying on the floor he would not be liable in battery as there would not be a voluntary act. Similarly, if you are asleep on the back seat of a car and in your sleep, you push the front seat forward, so that the driver is thrown into the steering wheel or runs into P because  It goes without saying that if A takes B's hand forcibly and strikes C with it, B is not liable because B has done no voluntary act. In Gambriell v Caparelli (1975) A Canadian judge expressed the view that ‘the distinction between assault and battery had been blurred, and that when  When is the act for the purposes of the tort battery said to be intentional? If the act is deliberate or wilful, if the defendant 'meant to do it'," it will be regarded as intentional, as when D punches P in the face with his fist because P has insulted  As Talbot J. said in Williams v Humphrey: 'it was argued that for the act to be a battery, there must be an intent to injure. I do not accept this contention. The intention goes to the commission of the act of force. This seems to be the  Coward v Badley (1859) o A building was on fire. o A bystander Badley (the defendant) touched the arm of a fireman (the plaintiff) to attract fireman’s attention to another part of the building where a fire was raging. o The plaintiff filed a suit in a court against the defendant for battery. o Court held that the act comes under the category called trifle where a person of normal temper and sense would not complain and hence the defendant is not liable for the tort of  Wilkinson v. Downton 2 QB 57 Development of a new tort? Shift from Assault/ Battery- Downton cracked joke that plaintiff’s husband met with serious accident - 2 broken legs - Wilkinson suffered violent nervous shock – seriously ill. The principle that where a defendant has wilfully committed an act or made a statement calculated to cause physical harm, and which does cause physical harm (including psychiatric injury), it is actionable. This tort can be differentiated from trespass to the person as  Mallette v. Shulman, 1991(2) Med. LR 162 – - Doctor not free to disregard advance instructions any more than he can disregard instructions given at the time. Nash v Sheen CLY3726 The claimant had gone to the defendant’s hairdressing salon where she was to receive a ‘permanent wave’. A tone rinse was applied to her hair, without her agreement, causing a skin reaction. The defendant was Collins v Wilcock : BATTERY [A] broader exception has been created to allow for the exigencies of everyday life. Generally speaking consent is a defence to battery; and most of the physical contacts of ordinary life are not actionable because they are impliedly consented to by all who move in society and so expose themselves to the risk of bodily contact.. such cases are regarded as examples of implied consent, it is more common nowadays to treat them as falling within a general exception embracing all …....... In each case, the test must be whether the physical contact so persisted in has in the circumstances gone beyond generally acceptable standards of conduct; and the answer to that question will depend upon the facts of the particular case.” FALSE IMPRISONMENT ‘False Imprisonment’- ‘unlawful imposition of restraint on another’s freedom of movement.’ S. 339, IPC - Wrongful restraint “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.” Punishable under S.341, IPC : Section 126(1), BNS - Wrongful restraint Exception: The obstruction of a private way over the land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence under this Section. Punishable under Section 126(2): Imprisonment up to 1 month and fine may extend to Rs. 5000, or both. S. 340, IPC –Wrongful confinement : “Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said to wrongfully to confine that person.” Punishable under S.342, IPC : Imprisonment up to 1 year or fine up to Rs.1000 or Section 127(1) BNS- Definition Wrongful Confinement ‘Whoever wrongfully restraints any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “ wrongfully to confine” that person’. Punishment- Section 127(2)- Ingredients : a. Restraint of liberty of a person Either actual or constructive – “Every confinement of the person is an imprisonment, whether it be in a common prison, or in a private house, or even forcibly detaining one in the public streets.” – Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol III, 127. – Constructive-by show of authority,  b. Unlawful Detention Period of detention is immaterial. However, even a police officer can be held liable for false imprisonment if he exceeds his jurisdiction and acts in a malicious manner. c. Period of Confinement: However short the period of unlawful detention an action for false imprisonment will always lie, provided that the other requirements of the torts are satisfied. Confinement for a very short period, say fifteen minutes is sufficient to create liability of false imprisonment. The period of confinement is Bird v. Jones Bird, B, wished to cross a section of a public road which was closed off due to a boat race. Two policemen prevented B from passing in the direction he wished to go, but was allowed to go in the only other direction in which he could pass. B refused to go in that direction and stood in the same place. B raised an action  Held: Partial obstruction and disturbance does not constitute imprisonment. ‘a prison may have its boundary large or narrow, visible and tangible, or, though real, still in the conception only; it may itself be moveable or fixed: but a boundary it must have; and that boundary the party imprisoned must be prevented from passing; he must be prevented from leaving that place,  Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Crowd control measures adopted by the police do not amount to FI. Even if certain innocent persons are detained to prevent breach of peace. Knowledge of Imprisonment Whether relevant? Herring v Boyle (1834) A schoolmaster detained a boy because his parents had not paid the fees. The child did not know of the act of detention. It was held that there was no Meering v. Graham White Aviation 1919 The plaintiff was suspected of stealing a keg of varnish from his employer, who sent two policemen to bring him to the company's office. The police were directed to remain in the neighborhood, and not to allow the plaintiff Lord Atkin : It appears to me that a person could be imprisoned without his knowing it. I think a person can be imprisoned while he is asleep, while he is in a state of drunkenness, while he is unconscious, and while he is a lunatic.... So a man might in fact... be imprisoned by having the key of a door turned against him so …… in fact although he does not know that the key has been turned.... Where a man is locked in a room without being aware of it and the door is unlocked after a short interval before he discovers his confinement, he has suffered no actual damage and would at most recover nominal damages ❖ It is possible that an imprisonment of which the plaintiff is at the time unconscious may result in serious bodily harm, and that the damages may be far from nominal. Let us consider an illustration: ❖ A locks B, a child two days old, in the vault. B is, of course, unconscious of the confinement, but the vault cannot be opened for two days. In the meantime, Robinson v. Balmain Ferry (1910) The defendant had a ticket office. They charged one penny when you entered the ferry and one to leave. R wanted to leave the ferry. He had already paid one penny but he was asked to pay again when he wanted to leave. He refused. No false imprisonment. Contract, the conditions were Herd v Weardale Steel Coal & Coke Ltd (1915) The case involved a miner who demanded to be returned to the surface before the end of his shift. The miner claimed for damages, however the claim was denied on the grounds that he had willingly entered the pit and that his employers were only obliged to take him to the surface Wright v. Wilson (1699) In the case of false imprisonment, if you have the reasonable chance to escape, you have to do that, even if you commit trespass to John Lewis & Co. v. Tims, (1952) AC 676 – Tims was suspected of shoplifting by a store detective at John Lewis store and was taken to the Managing Director, who, having decided to prosecute, immediately sent for the police officers. Had Tims been falsely imprisoned by the store? Without lawful justification Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, (1985) 4 SCC 677 Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141 Rudal Shah: In this case, the petitioner, an under-trial was wrongfully confined in jail for several years despite his acquittal by the Court. The High Court of Patna held that as soon as a person under trial is found not guilty by the court, he should be set free. Any detention after it shall be unlawful. The State had to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 as Arrest by a Public Officer Arrest involves trespass to person, onus lies on arrestor to justify - Minimum requirement : lawful & reasonable suspicion of involvement in any cognizable offence. - Section 41(1) (a), Cr.P.C., 1973 –When police may arrest without warrant “Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned.”  Section 35 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person— Who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a Cognizable offence; A reasonable complaint has been made, or Credible information has been received, or Reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence Conditions for Arrest without Warrant- Section 35 of BNSS Reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence; Such arrest is necessary— (a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, - There is no liability when detention is in accordance to an legislative or Statutory Act under due process of law. - Safeguards in matters of arrest by police officers in cognisable cases - Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, AIR 1994 SC1349, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 12997 SC 610 D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal., the petitioners came up with important issues concerning the police powers and if monetary compensation should be awarded for established violation of Fundamental Rights, as under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Held: Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock ups, strikes a blow at the Rule of Law, To check the abuse of police power, transparency of action and accountability were the two safeguards laid down by the court. Certain directives were been issued by the court where it spelled out the rights of an arrestee or a detainee and the manner in which the arresting or detaining authority is expected to behave, including the written record of arrest, informing of arrestee’s family of his arrest, - Rights of arrested person : right to informed of grounds of arrest, to inform friend/relatives, to consult a lawyer, to be produced before Magistrate within 24 hrs of arrest – Art. 22(1) & (2), Indian Constitution. - Arrest by Private person S. 43, Cr. P.C. authorizes a private person to arrest another who has committed a non-bailable and cognizable offence or is a proclaimed offender. - However, the person must be promptly handed over to the authorities. - Not necessary that person before whom such offence has been committed shall himself make the  Defendant has burden to prove justifications Action for trespass available against : 1. Private person 2. State and its officers Assault and Battery could be justified under following condition: 1. Self- Defence- Lane v. Holloway (19068) 1 QB 379 – Valid defence 2. Expulsion of a Trespasser –forceful/violent trespass- owner may turn him out with necessary force without previous request to depart – but if he enters 3. Retaking of goods – rightful owner or his servant by his command- repossess land/goods from wrongful possession- but force used must not be unnecessary. 4. Lawful correction – Parental/quasi-parental authority- but without excessive/unreasonable force. A v. United Kingdom, (1998) 2 FLR 959 – Stepfather hit 9yrs. child- garden cane- several occasions - fresh and old bruises found on back of his legs. Stepfather charged under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act,1861 with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Jury acquitted him on defence of lawful chastisement. The applicant took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, which held - UK was in breach of Article 3 ECHR (No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) because its law failed to provide adequate protection to the applicant by permitting a  Costello-Roberts v UK, (1995) 19 EHRR 112- the Court found that the punishment of 7yr old consisting of three smacks on the buttocks, through shorts, with a soft-soled shoe causing no visible injury did not attain the minimum level of severity to amount to a violation of Article 3, ECHR.  Consent: Express/implied consent of plaintiff to defendant’s act of assault/battery – good defence – based on volenti non fit injuria. Can it be presumed that spectators at a game know of and consent to take risk of any damage? When can Sportsman be liable to spectators? Woolridge v. Sumner, The plaintiff, Mr. Wooldridge, who was a photographer at a horse race, was injured by the horse belonging to the defendant, Sumner, which was ridden in a competition by Sumner's, who was a skilled and experienced horseman. As a spectator, Wooldridge accepted the risks involved in a horserace he came to watch. As a reasonable participant in the race, which is a fast and competitive sport, the horseman was expected to concentrate on the race and not on the spectator. In the course of a fast moving competition such as this one, he could be expected to make errors of judgment. As long as the damage was not caused recklessly or deliberately, the participant in a race Did Sumner owe any duty of care to Wooldridge? Was the damage caused recklessly or deliberately? Participants in a sport consent to reasonable contact within the rule of the game. But assault & battery lie when game involved hostility and intentional harm.  McNamara v. Duncan, (1979) 26 ALR 584 – – McNamara and Duncan had been on opposing teams in an Australian Rules football match – Plaintiff had just kicked the football, but the defendant continued to run at him and hit him on the head, fracturing his skull- serious infringement of rules. – Def. argued that there was implied consent to a little bit of foul play in the game. – Can contact in a scenario of implied consent still be seen as trespass? – There is mutual consent to tackles (to dispossess an opponent of the ball), which are within the rules. – But consent is exceeded when there is forcible contact both outside the rules & deliberate/reckless blow beyond normal foul play. 6.Preservation of public peace – force may be used to remove persons disturbing public worship/meeting/lawful game. 7.Statutory authority – a valid defence in serving legal process- statutory power of search, arrest and detention.