1. Ashley - Intentional torts Flashcards
Ashley and another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008]
Fatal shooting of a suspect by a police officer.
Chief Constable accepted liability in negligence and (later) false imprisonment, and comprehensively admitted liability to compensate the claimants for all damage flowing from the shooting (including aggravated damage).
Issue which divided the House of Lords, concerned the sustainability of a civil action in trespass to the person and raising important questions about the purpose of trespass torts.
Scott v Shepherd
– Rule: Everyone who does an unlawful act is considered as the doer of all that follows. Throwing the squib was an unlawful act.
R v Ireland
D made a series of silent calls to various women causing them Psychiatric injury. He was convicted under s 47 OAPA. Court held that silence can amount to an assault and psychiatric ‘injury’ can amount to bodily harm. ‘uses the direct force requirement’.
Tuberville v Savage
D used some language that could have indicated danger. However, it was held that his words did not amount to an assault, as the words indicated that no violence would ensue.
Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers
this is a case that fell out of a minor dispute for less than a year. The court said that the action has to be attached to imminent danger.
The actions of miners striking were held to constitute a nuisance. Scott J considered that the miners returning to work should be entitled to use the public highway to enter the colliery without harassment and abuse shouted at them by the picketers.
The claimant must think that he is about to be attacked.
In Mbasogo v Logo Ltd [2006]
Court of Appeal said of the Thomas v NUM case that: ‘The threats made by pickets to those miners who sought to go to work were not an assault because the pickets had no capacity to put into effect their threats of violence whilst they were held back from the vehicles which the working miners were within.’
Bird v Jones (1845)
The plaintiff was prohibited from moving in the direction he wished to go. But he was free to remain where he was, or move in any other direction. The plaintiff sued to the defendant for false imprisonment. However, the court held:
That to claim false imprisonment, the plaintiff must have been confined to some boundary whether it is tangible or intangible. In this case the plaintiff was not restrained to a bounded area. The plaintiff still had the option to remain in one spot or proceed in a different direction. D only prevented plaintiff from continuing in one specific direction. Plaintiff may have suffered a loss of freedom, but this loss of freedom did not constitute false imprisonment.
The requirement that for the tort of false imprisonment to be committed, a positive act has to be performed was recently reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association (2010).
Wilkinson v Downton
It is sufficient if D acted in reckless disregard for this possibility, or if it was foreseeable that profound distress would ensue (ie, imputed intent). That more harm was done than was anticipated is irrelevant
- Section 7(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
- Section 3(2)
- provides a civil remedy where a defendant engages in conduct amounting to ‘harassment’.
- provides that damages may be awarded even if the claimant suffers mere anxiety.
OPO v MLA [2014]- Court of Appeal
The case = facts = The case is argued in 3 torts (private information + negligence – py harm + and the lawyer will resurrect the case of Wilkinson v Dowton)
= the case concerns a written book with the writer’s childhood story of sexual abuse.
The CA dismiss the claim on negligence and inf and found in favour of the child and prevented the book from being published.
Rhodes v OPO [2015] – Supreme Court
A “conduct element”. This requires words or conduct to be directed towards the claimant for which there is no justification a “legitimate interest of the defendant in telling his story to the world at large in the way in which he wishes to tell it, and the corresponding interest of the public in hearing his story”.
A “mental element”. The defendant need not intend to cause the psychological harm which resulted, it is sufficient if the defendant intended to cause severe distress.
“imputation of an intention by operation of a rule of law … has no proper role in the modern law of tort”. James Rhodes did not have the necessary intention to cause severe distress to his son.
Recklessness is not sufficient.
- Case overturned OPO v MLA
R v Williams
Validity of consent case.
the teacher that convinced the girl that sex will make her signing voice better.
KD v Chief Constable of Hampshire (2005),
Talks about where consent can be withdrawn and here the touching is lawful*(best way to describe it). So sometimes as a cop you might hug a person for comfort due to distressful moments. So the police hug C and then it became a sexual thing – hence the court rendered the consent invalid.
R v Dica [2004]
Man met woman over the internet had sex – the woman consented – the she found out he was HIV positive and said she would not have had s if she had known about the HIV. Consent not removed to the act.
