False Imprisonment Flashcards
Requirements for FALSE IMPRISONMENT
(1) Imprisonment - complete restriction of the claimant’s freedom of movement.
(2) Defendant must intend the restriction of claimant’s freedom of movement.
(3) “False” - the restriction of the claimant’s movement must be UNLAWFUL.
Bird v Jones (1845)
Boat race - part of public highway closed off - plaintiff denies free movement - told he had to go the other way - brought claim for false imprisonment
Rejected.
HELD: THERE MUST BE A COMPLETE RESTRICTION ON THE CLAIMANT’S MOVEMENT, NOT PARTIAL.
(As plaintiff could’ve gone the other way.)
Thus if there is another reasonable means for the claimant to leave the place from where they think they are imprisoned - then won’t satisfy 1st element of the tort (complete restriction).
Meering v Graham-White Aviation Co.
AUTHORITY THAT CLAIMANT NEED NOT BE AWARE THAT HE WAS BEING IMPRISONED.
Shows importance of right to liberty.
Plaintiff - suspected of stealing from employer and brought into room for questioning - unaware that there were 2 security guards on outside who would’ve stopped him from leaving if he tried.
Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988]
Suspsected of involvement in IRA - house searched - family confined to one room before arrest half an hour later.
Claimed for the half an hour unlawful F.I.
Rejected as held to be standard practice and not unlawful.
On issue of whether there needs to be knowledge of imprisonment - said, obiter dicta, reinforcing Meering - WILL BE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN FALSE IMPRISONMENT, due to importance of right to liberty, but NOMINAL DAMAGES.
R. v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (no 2) [2000]
Authority that for intention to commit false imprisonment, ONLY HAVE TO INTEND THE RESTRICTION OF MOVEMENT, NOT THE UNLAWFULNESS OF THAT RESTRICTION.
In case - woman lawfully in jail but due to negligent error or prison governor, released a few days after her actual release date.
Thus a period of a few days where the imprisonment was unlawful.
Liability.
Held that D need not intend unlawful restriction of C’s movement - rather just the restriction.
D was aware that she would be confined in prison so clearly INTENDED the restriction, even though he didn’t know that it was unlawful.
Form of strict liability
Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009]
Concerns other element of whether the false imprisonment was lawful (unlike battery and assault, lawfulness is not only assessed by the applicability of defences.)
____
May day riots - kettling
Brought claims in tort and under Article 5 HRA - later dropped tort claim accepting that if there was no breach of Art. 5, then also no breach of her common law rights (as Article 5 also requires that action taken must be proportionate to be lawful)
Held; that police did not kettle for longer than necessary - did so for as long as was necessary to achieve its purposes.
Prison Officers Association v Iqbal [2009]
Prison inmate not allowed out in the morning to go to gym etc. as he normally would be, due to officer strikes and lack of staff.
Claimed for false imprisonment.
Issue: restriction on his movement caused by omission rather than an act.
Held: NO LIABILITY FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT WHEN CAUSED BY AN OMISSION, UNLESS CLAIMANT HAD A VERY CLEAR RIGHT TO BE RELEASED AND THERE WAS A DUTY TO RELEASE, as there was in ex parte Evans (Brockhill Prison case.)
R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
LUMBA
AUTHORITY THAT THERE IS A CAUSE OF ACTION WHEN A CLAIMANT IS FALSLY IMPRISONED UNLAWFULLY, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THERE WAS A LAWFUL WAY IN WHICH HE COULD’VE BEEN PRISONED.
Foreign immigrant had overstayed visa - criminal offences - pending deportation.
Public policy of Home Sec: detain dangerous persons awaiting deportation (lawful)
Secret, private policy Home Sec actually pursued - detain ALL foreign nationals awaiting deportation - UNLAWFUL to employ a secret policy.
___
Issue: Appellant could have been detained lawfully, but is in fact being detained on the basis of an unlawful policy.
___
Held by UKSC:
Claim for false imprisonment WILL SUCCEED.
BUT NOMINAL DAMAGES as no damage actually suffered.
Vindicatory purpose.
Held that fact he could’ve been detained lawfully was immaterial - fact was that he had been imprisoned on unlawful premises - thus false imprisonment.
No defence of causation
R (Kambadzi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011]
KAMBADZI
Similar to Lumba - affirmed.
Kambadzi - from Zimbabwe - outstayed visa - criminal assaults - lawfully detained pending deportation.
K complained there was a failure to review the circumstances of his detention - argued that failure to comply with this legal requirement to hold regular review = false imprisonment.
NB: Court knew that had reviews been carried out - would still have been detained.
___
UKSC APPLIED LUMBA - FACT THAT K WOULD’VE BEEN DETAINED LAWFULLY MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT PART OF HIS DETENTION WAS UNLAWFUL - GAVE RIGHT TO A CAUSE OF ACTION IN FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
Again, nominal damages.
___
Minority dissented on basis that false imprisonment should not be grounded on minor contraventions of public/administrative law.
Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co. [1910]
Ferry case
1) Held not to be a complete restriction as could’ve just taken ferry then exited.
2) JUST BEING HELD TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT HE HAD ALREADY AGREED TO.
Herd v Weardale Steel [1915]
Affirms Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co.
Worker - dispute in mineshaft - held he was bound to the conditions that mineshaft lift would only be operated twice a day.
Thus no cause of action in false imprisonment.
