assault battery and false imprisonemtn Flashcards
What is an assault
an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person
What is battery
the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person
What is false imprisonment?
the unlawful imposition of constraint on another’s freedom of movement from a particular place
what are the 3 core characteristics for the trespass torts?
1) type of culpability: they are to be committed intentionally or recklessly
2) Type of harm- can recover for some types of har that can’t be recovered in negligence
3) proof of harm- they are actionable per se, that is, without proof of personal or financial loss
What case under
‘type of culpability’
notes that
‘when the injury is not inflicted intentionally but negligently, I would say that the only cause of action is in negligence and not trespass’.
Letang v Cooper
Under type of culpability
Iqbal v Prison Offciers Association considers the intentional committal
a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities.
HELD:
The mere failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and (b) that failure was not the direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.
a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities.
HELD:
The mere failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and (b) that failure was not the direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.
Under type of culpability
Iqbal v Prison Offciers Association considers the intentional committal
What are the 3 elements of battery?
1) intentional application of unlawful force
2) which is direct and immediate
3) For which there is no lawful excuse of justification
what case is an example of intentional application of unlawful force (battery step 1) ?
Williams v Humphries
Williams v Humphries is an example of intentional application of unlawful force (battery step 1)
discuss case
The defendant pushed the claimant into the swimming pool as a practical joke, unfortunately this caused the claimant to break his ankle.
Held: The defendant was liable.
The defendant pushed the claimant into the swimming pool as a practical joke, unfortunately this caused the claimant to break his ankle.
Held: The defendant was liable.
Williams v Humphries is an example of intentional application of unlawful force (battery step 1)
discuss case
which case demonstrates an intentional application of unlawful force
(intention application of unlawful force battery)
fagan
fagan demonstrates an intentional application of unlawful force
(intention application of unlawful force battery)
discuss case
D accidentally drove over officers foot but then failed to move it after being made aware
Criminal battery can also show tort of battery
D accidentally drove over officers foot but then failed to move it after being made aware
Criminal battery can also show tort of battery
fagan demonstrates an intentional application of unlawful force
(intention application of unlawful force battery)
discuss case
(intention application of unlawful force battery)
Which case demonstrates that horseplay is not a battery
Wiliiams v Pringle
D pulled a bag off C’s shoulder and injured C
NO battery because action was horseplay
(intention application of unlawful force battery)
Wiliiams v Pringle demonstrates that horseplay is not a battery
Which 2 cases concern
-which is direct and immediate?
- Scott v Sheppard
- DPP v K
Scott v Sheppard DPP v K both consider what is meant by direct and immediate under battery discuss the first
Defendant throw a small firework into a market place was to be liable aftr it was thrown onwards by two stall holders before exploding and injuring a third
Defendant throw a small firework into a market place was to be liable aftr it was thrown onwards by two stall holders before exploding and injuring a third
Scott v Sheppard DPP v K both consider what is meant by direct and immediate under battery discuss the first
Scott v Sheppard DPP v K both consider what is meant by direct and immediate under battery discuss the second
A school child created a bobbly trap by filling a hand dryer with sulfuric acid, which burnt the next child to use it.
Held: The defendant was liable.
A school child created a bobbly trap by filling a hand dryer with sulfuric acid, which burnt the next child to use it.
Held: The defendant was liable.
Scott v Sheppard DPP v K both consider what is meant by direct and immediate under battery discuss the second
Which standard defences apply to the 3rd battery step
‘for which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
- voluntary assumption of risk and
- illegality
-voluntary assumption of risk and
-illegality are standard defences which apply to the 3rd battery step
‘for which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
this is most relevant in medical context. Which case demonstrates this and explain
Chatterson
the patient must be“informed in broad terms what the procedure involves”.
Chatterson
the patient must be“informed in broad terms what the procedure involves”.
-voluntary assumption of risk and
-illegality are standard defences which apply to the 3rd battery step
‘for which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
this is most relevant in medical context. Which case demonstrates this and explain
voluntary assumption of risk and
-illegality are standard defences which apply to the 3rd battery step
‘for which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
this is most revelenat in a medical context. Which case established that an adult patient with no mental incapacity has an absolute right to choose whether to consent to medical treatment
Re T
Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
Which case demonstrates the 2 part test for self defence. and what is the 2 part test?
Ashley v CC of Sussex Police
1) the claimant must have a reasonable belief that they are about to be attacked and
2) the force they use must be proportionate to the circumstances
Ashley v CC of Sussex Police
1) the claimant must have a reasonable belief that they are about to be attacked and
2) the force they use must be proportionate to the circumstances
Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
Which case demonstrates the 2 part test for self defence. and what is the 2 part test?
Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
What are the 3 cases under self defence?
Ashely v CC of Sussex Police
Cockcroft v Smith
Cross v Kirkby
Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
the three cases under this are
Ashely v CC of Sussex Police
Cockcroft v Smith
Cross v Kirkby
discuss the second
Claimant had run towards the defendant with his finger pointsd towards D’s eye. the defendant bit the claimants finger off
held:
disproportionate force so not valid self defence
Claimant had run towards the defendant with his finger pointsd towards D’s eye. the defendant bit the claimants finger off
held:
disproportionate force so not valid self defence
Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
the three cases under this are
Ashely v CC of Sussex Police
Cockcroft v Smith
Lane
discuss the second
Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
the three cases under this are
Ashely v CC of Sussex Police
Cockcroft v Smith
Lane
discuss the third
claimant believing the defendant was going to hit him threw a punch at the defendants shoulder. The defendant then punched the claimant causing severe injury
HELD
punch was disproportionate and provocation not a defence
The man who strikes a blow of such severity is liable in damages unless he can prove accident or self-defence’.
claimant believing the defendant was going to hit him threw a punch at the defendants shoulder. The defendant then punched the claimant causing severe injury
HELD
punch was disproportionate and provocation not a defence
The man who strikes a blow of such severity is liable in damages unless he can prove accident or self-defence’.
Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
the three cases under this are
Ashely v CC of Sussex Police
Cockcroft v Smith
Lane
discuss the third
which case established that assault is “an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person”.
Collins v Wilcock
what are the 4 elements of assault?
1) the defendant must intend or be reckless as to the claimants apprehending of the application of unlawful force
2) it must be reasonable for the claimant to apprehend immediate unlawful force being applied to them and
3) the threat must be of the apprehension of immediate and direct force
4) no lawful justification or excuse
under the 2nd element of establishing an assault, what is the case which considers whether C has a reasonable fear ?
Stephens v myers
Stephens v myers considerswhether C has a reasonable fear under the 2nd element of establishing an assault,
discuss case
Defendant asked to leave parish council meeting. The defendant threatened the chair with violence and advanced toward the chair with a clenched fist before being intercepted.
Held: Liable in assault.
Defendant asked to leave parish council meeting. The defendant threatened the chair with violence and advanced toward the chair with a clenched fist before being intercepted.
Held: Liable in assault.
Stephens v myers considerswhether C has a reasonable fear under the 2nd element of establishing an assault,
discuss case
Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, which cases considered this?
- Thomas v National Union of Miners
- R v Ireland
- Tuberville v Savage
Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, the following cases considered this -Thomas v National Union of Miners -R v Ireland -Tuberville v Savage
discuss the first
During the miners’ strike a group of striking miners outside a mine shouted abuse and threats at miners being bussed in to work in the pit. One of the miners on the bus sought to sue the organising union in battery.
Held: No assault.
During the miners’ strike a group of striking miners outside a mine shouted abuse and threats at miners being bussed in to work in the pit. One of the miners on the bus sought to sue the organising union in battery.
Held: No assault.
Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force,
the following cases considered this
-Thomas v National Union of Miners
Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, the following cases considered this -Thomas v National Union of Miners -R v Ireland -Tuberville v Savage
discuss the second
Facts: the defendant had been harassing women for some time, including by making silent phone calls to them.
Held: The court held ‘a thing said is also a thing done’ and the defendant liable.
Facts: the defendant had been harassing women for some time, including by making silent phone calls to them.
Held: The court held ‘a thing said is also a thing done’ and the defendant liable.
Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, the following cases considered this -Thomas v National Union of Miners -R v Ireland -Tuberville v Savage
discuss the second
Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, the following cases considered this -Thomas v National Union of Miners -R v Ireland -Tuberville v Savage
discuss the third
The defendant placed his hand on his sword and stated ‘if it were not assize time I would not take such language from you.’
Held: No assault
The defendant placed his hand on his sword and stated ‘if it were not assize time I would not take such language from you.’
Held: No assault
Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, the following cases considered this -Thomas v National Union of Miners -R v Ireland -Tuberville v Savage
discuss the third
How has Collins v Willcock described false imprionsment
unlawful imposition of constraint on another’s freedom of movement from a particular place’
What are the 3 elements of establishing false imprisonemtn?
1) The defendant must intend the restriction of the claimant’s freedom of movement,
2) There must be a complete restriction of the claimant’s freedom of movement, and
3) It must be done without lawful authorisation.
under false imprisonment which case demonstrates that it can be committed intentionally or recklessly?
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association
under false imprisonment Iqbal v Prison Officers Association demonstrates that it can be committed intentionally or recklessl
discuss case
a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities.
HELD:
The mere failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and (b) that failure was not the direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.
a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities.
HELD:
The mere failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and (b) that failure was not the direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.
under false imprisonment Iqbal v Prison Officers Association demonstrates that it can be committed intentionally or recklessl
discuss case
which cases demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?
Walker
Robinson v Ferry
Walker demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?discuss case
Claimant was unlawfully blocked by a policeman in a doorway for a few seconds.
Held: Unlawful false imprisonment.
Claimant was unlawfully blocked by a policeman in a doorway for a few seconds.
Held: Unlawful false imprisonment.
Walker demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?discuss case
Robinson v Ferry demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?discuss case
The claimant had paid a penny to enter a wharf in order to catch a ferry but then changed his mind. The defendants refused to let him leave without paying another penny.
Held: not false imprisonment
When R entered the ferry gate, he agreed to pay a penny on both entering and leaving the ferry.
The claimant had paid a penny to enter a wharf in order to catch a ferry but then changed his mind. The defendants refused to let him leave without paying another penny.
Held: not false imprisonment
When R entered the ferry gate, he agreed to pay a penny on both entering and leaving the ferry.
Robinson v Ferry demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?discuss case
Under the second requirement that there must be a complete restriction which case discusses whether lack of consciousness matters?
Meering
Under the second requirement that there must be a complete restriction Meering discusseswhether lack of consciousness matters?
discuss
a personperson 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 …
a personperson 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 …
Under the second requirement that there must be a complete restriction Meering discusseswhether lack of consciousness matters?
discuss
What are the 2 statutes under the last step of without lawful authorisation or excuse for false imprisonment?
prison act 1952 and
PACE 1984
what is the rule in wilkinson v downtown in regards to the inftention infliction of emotional or physical harm
discuss the case
For a joke the defendant falsely told the claimant that her husband had been involved in an accident in which he had been seriously injured.
Held: “He had ‘wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the female [claimant] – that is to say, infringe her right to personal safety, and thereby in fact caused physical harm to her. That proposition, without more appears to me to state a good cause of action, there being no justification alleged for the act’
For a joke the defendant falsely told the claimant that her husband had been involved in an accident in which he had been seriously injured.
Held: “He had ‘wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the female [claimant] – that is to say, infringe her right to personal safety, and thereby in fact caused physical harm to her. That proposition, without more appears to me to state a good cause of action, there being no justification alleged for the act’
what is the rule in wilkinson v downtown in regards to the inftention infliction of emotional or physical harm
discuss the case
The criteria for
;intentional infliction of emotional or phyriscla harm has 3 criteria
what are they?
conduct element:
D must use words or conduct directed to the claimant for which there is no justification ro reasonable excuse
mental element:
the words or conduct must be intended to cause the claimant physical harm or severe mental or emotional distress
consequence element:
the claimant must suffer physical harm or a recognised psychological injury as a consequence
- Emotional distress is not sufficient.
- It is not actionable per se.
Two cases are discussed under the intentional infliction emotional or physical harm
the first is Wilkinson v Downtwon what is the second?
Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53
there are two cases discussed under the intentional infliction emotional or physical harm. The first is Wilkinson v Downtown and the second is Wainwright v Home Office
discuss the second
mother and her son, had been subjected to strip searches by prison officers while visiting a family member in Leeds prison, which were not conducted according to the prison rules. They were distressed
HELD:
Held: No claim under the rule in Wilkinson v Downtown as (a) not sufficient intention or recklessness to cause harm by the prison officers, and (b) no recognised psychiatric harm caused
mother and her son, had been subjected to strip searches by prison officers while visiting a family member in Leeds prison, which were not conducted according to the prison rules. They were distressed
HELD:
Held: No claim under the rule in Wilkinson v Downtown as (a) not sufficient intention or recklessness to cause harm by the prison officers, and (b) no recognised psychiatric harm caused
there are two cases discussed under the intentional infliction emotional or physical harm. The first is Wilkinson v Downtown and the second is Wainwright v Home Office
discuss the second
What is the purpose of the Protection from Harassment Act 1998?
It goes beyond the common law by giving protection to distress which is not a medically recognised psychiatric injury.
What is the test under the Protection from harrassment act 1998?
would a reasonable person think the conduct amounted to harassment
(dilberately broad)
generally a single action will not be sufficient. What would count?
conduct on at least 2 occasions in relation to a single person
what did the case of Law Society v Kordowski hold in relation to the Protection From Harrasssment Act 1998?
The defendant was the founder, operator and publisher of the “Solicitors from Hell” website. Members of the public were invited, in return for a fee, to “name and shame” solicitors.
Held: Publication of information about a person on a website could amount to a course of conduct.
The defendant was the founder, operator and publisher of the “Solicitors from Hell” website. Members of the public were invited, in return for a fee, to “name and shame” solicitors.
Held: Publication of information about a person on a website could amount to a course of conduct.
what did the case of Law Society v Kordowski hold in relation to the Protection From Harrasssment Act 1998?
which case discussed the ability for harassment at work to be included within the Protection from Harassment Act 1998?
Veakins v Kier Islington
Veakins v Kier Islingtondiscussed the ability for harassment at work to be included within the Protection from Harassment Act 1998
discuss case
The claimant was victimised and bullied by the defendant, who was her manager at her place of work
HELD: is doubtful whether the legislature had the workplace in mind when passing an Act that was principally directed at “stalking” and similar cases. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the language of the Act which excludes workplace harassment.
The claimant was victimised and bullied by the defendant, who was her manager at her place of work
HELD: is doubtful whether the legislature had the workplace in mind when passing an Act that was principally directed at “stalking” and similar cases. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the language of the Act which excludes workplace harassment.
Veakins v Kier Islingtondiscussed the ability for harassment at work to be included within the Protection from Harassment Act 1998
discuss case
(intention application of unlawful force battery)
Wiliiams v Pringle demonstrates that horseplay is not a battery
D pulled a bag off C’s shoulder and injured C
NO battery because action was horseplay
