Trespass to Person: False Imprisonment Lecture PDF

TRESPASS TO PERSON 3. FALSE IMPRISONMENT ¡ This tort is committed where the defendant imposes intentionally and directly a total restraint on the liberty of the plaintiff. ¡ The law is protecting a person’s freedom from confinement. ¡ It is usually associated with wrongful arrests by polic...

TRESPASS TO PERSON 3. FALSE IMPRISONMENT ¡ This tort is committed where the defendant imposes intentionally and directly a total restraint on the liberty of the plaintiff. ¡ The law is protecting a person’s freedom from confinement. ¡ It is usually associated with wrongful arrests by police, security guard or store detective. Def: ‘The infliction of bodily restraint which causes the confinement of the plaintiff within an area determined by the defendant, which is not expressly or impliedly authorised by law (Meering v Graham White Aviation ) 3 elements: 1. The mental state of the defendant 2. A direct consequence of the defendant’s act 3. The restraint must be complete 1. The mental state of the defendant The act to restraint must be committed intentionally v W Elphinstone v Lee Leng San Ø Plaintiff brought an action for damages for false imprisonment because Plaintiff was arrested by police at the entrance of the court on a charge of driving a lorry with inefficient brakes. Plaintiff alleged that the police officer negligently caused him to be arrested without reasonable probable cause. Ø Held: false imprisonment could not occur through negligence.(Intention to restrain is necessary) 2. A direct consequence of the defendant’s act Only the person who directly causes the confinement may be successfully sued v Harnett v Bond v Quinland v Governor of Swaleside Prison & Others v R v Governor of Brockhill Prison 3. The restraint must be complete The restraint must be total v Bird v Jones No false imprisonment if a safe means of escape exists v Wright v Wilson a) Plaintiff’s knowledge b) Entering premises under a contract c) Arrest & restraint by the authorities a) Plaintiff’s knowledge vHerring v Boyle vMeering v Graham-White Aviation Re-emphasised in: vMurray v Minister of Defence : ‘… I cannot agree… that it is an essential element of the tort of false imprisonment that the victim should be aware of the fact of denial of liberty’(Lord Griffiths). b) Entering premises under a contract v Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Ltd v Herd v Weardale Steel Coal & Coke Co Ltd c) Arrest & restraint by an authorities i. Police officer ii. Penghulu iii. Magistrate / Justice of the Peace iv. Private citizens v John Lewis & Co vTim  TRESPASS TO PERSON: The Tort in WILKINSON V DOWNTON ¡ Categorised as intentional harm other than trespass to person ¡ This is an action for indirect but intentional harm (intentional indirect harm) v Wilkinson v Downton Held: Since there was no direct interference, an action in trespass to person was not possible. However, the court found that there was an intentional act that was calculated to cause harm indirectly for which the defendant must be liable, since it was reasonable to assume that the harm was of a type that could be expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances. Facts of the case: As a practical joke, Defendant told Plaintiff that her husband had been injured in an accident. The effect of Defendant’s statement was a violent shock to Plaintiff’s nervous system resulting in weeks of suffering and incapacity. Held: Plaintiff may seek recovery for outrageous conduct that causes physical harm or mental distress. In this case Defendant willfully performed the act which caused harm to the Plaintiff. 4 elements: 1. A positive act / statement (not an omission) 2. The act must be wilfully and deliberately done. 3. The act is calculated (foreseable) to cause some harm 4. Plaintiff suffers actual damage The application of the similar principle were seen in the following cases: v Janvier v Sweeney v Khorasandjian v Bush v Burris v Azadani v Facts: Pf’s fiance (German descent) and Pf worked as maid. Pf’s employer investigated, Df (detective) threatened Pf by accusing her of corresponding with German spy in order to get her to help him investigate her employer. Pf suffered nervous shock and rashes. v Held: Df liable as Pf could prove her allegations and that the shock was a direct consequences of Df’s act. v Facts: The Plaintiff was an 18-year-old woman who was being harassed by the defendant a 23-year-old man. He had threatened her with violence, behaved aggressively when he saw her, shouted abuse at her, he would pester her with phone calls at her parents’ and grandparents’ house. v Held: Defendant’s conduct amounted to a tort and Plaintiff was granted an injunction so that she would be protected from harassment. A woman, was granted an injunction against a man who had been harassing her; the injunction provided inter alia that the defendant was not to go within 250 yards of the plaintiff’s home. Upholding a four-week committal to prison for breaches of this injunction. v Facts: The Pf suffered humiliation and distress as the result of being strip-searched (ie. required to undress) while visiting a relative in prison. Although the conduct of the prison officers (for whom the defendant, the Home Office was responsible) in requiring the plaintiff to undress was in good faith, it was not protected by statutory authority. v Held: The rule in WvD should not apply without proof of a specific intention to cause either physical or psychiatric injury.