False imprisonment

Question 1

Definition

Answer 1

A direct and intentional total body restraint

Question 2

The mental element

Answer 2

It is not fully clear whether the restraint must be intentional

Question 3

R v Governor of Brockhill Prisok (ex parte Evans) (2001)

+ Quinland”judicial process”

Answer 3

Facts- C had been held in prison longer than she should because the prison governor miscalculated the time she should spend in custody
C had been convicted many times she her sentence was complicated to calculate

Principle- unlawfully imprisoned and that false imprisonment was q Todd of strict liability, so didn’t need to prove intention

A02- did intentionally imprison her just didn’t know the lawfulness of doing so

Question 4

Iqbal v Prison officers Association

Answer 4

Facts- officer omitted to unlock a prison cell during a strike

Principle- FI had no direct action on the part of the prison officers and was not the direct cause of him being confined in the cell

Question 5

R v Bournewood Community & Mental Health NHS Trust (1998)

Answer 5

Severely autistic couldn’t consent to medical treatment
Mental hospital voluntarily
Hospital trust appealed a finding that that his detention was unlawful
Couldn’t leave

Principle- detained in law if those who have control over the premises in which he is have the intention that he shall not be permitted to leave those premises and have the ability to prevent them from doing so

Question 6

Restraint must be total

Answer 6

Just has to deprived oh his/her personal liberty for any length of time
-clothes
-holding arm
-unlawfully arresting him
Has to not be able to move in any direction

Question 7

Standard false imprisonment case

Bird v Jones (1845)

Answer 7

Part of Hammersmith Bridge was closed off for seating to watch a regatta- he could have crossed and used the other side
Mr Burs insisted on walking on that part of the bridge and climbed into the enclosure
He could go back the way he came

Principle- the claimant was not imprisoned as he was free to leave the way he had entered- the restraint was no ‘total’

Question 8

Way out has to be non dangerous and legal

Wright v Wilson (1699)

Answer 8

Facts- c could escape but would trespass someone’s land in doing someone else’s land
The court held this was acceptable in the circumstances and was sufficient enough reason to prevent liability

Principle- the barriers in the area of confinement need not to be physical for false imprisonment to arise

FI where there is an alternative escape but it is illegal or unreasonable to take it
V had been falsely imprisoned

Question 9

Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958)

Answer 9

Facts- the claimant became locked in w lavatory due to lock breaking
No intent

Principle- the false imprisonment was caused by negligence not somebody’s direct or intentional act therefore no false imprisonment
No force needed in false imprisonment

Question 10

D’s knowledge of detention

Answer 10

In the past person needed to be aware of false imprisonment- herring b Boyle (1834)

Question 11

Herring v Boyle (1834)

Answer 11

Facts- a woman wanted to take her boy hint but headmaster wouldn’t cos she didn’t pay

Principle- defendant had to be aware of imprisonment
Boy didn’t know why

Question 12

Even if not aware- Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1920)

Answer 12

Facts- Meering held in a room because they thought he was a thief and so questioned jinn
Guards were placed outside the door

Principle- be falsely imprisoned without being aware of it

Question 13

Murray v Ministry of Defence (1988)

Answer 13

Woman’s home searched in relation to terrorist matters
Wasn’t arrested for 30 minutes
Unclear whether she had been detained

Principle- don’t have to be aware of fakes imprisonment

Question 14

Contractual obligation restraint

Robinson v Balmain Ferry

Answer 14

Facts- claimant crossing bridge to get to ferry
One pence on and off via exit turnstile
Missed ferry so didn’t cross and tried to go back
Principle- No FI where entry/exit is payable as a contractual obligation

Question 15

Restraint by employer

Here v Weardale Steel (1915)

Answer 15

Facts- miner contracted to go into the mine and work a shift
Once down wanted to come back up
Here was prevented from using the cage which was the only way out of the mine

No FI where contracted to be there where allegedly “imprisonment”

Question 16

Austin v Metropolitan police commissioner (2009)

Answer 16

Facts- During anti-capitalist demonstrations in London on May 1 2001, the police cordoned in up to three thousand demonstrators in Oxford Circus for up to 7 hours.

that measures of crowd control undertaken in the interests of the community will fall outside of Article 5 right to liberty as long as they are not arbitrary, are resorted to in good faith, and are proportionate and enforced for no longer than necessary. It was held that the use of the cordon, which had resulted in people being held in one place without food, water or shelter, was not a deprivation of liberty. There was no breach of Article 5

Question 17

Defences

Answer 17

Include lawful arrest
Detention under PACE

Defences of citizens arrest, Mental Health Act 1983 and consent

Question 18

More defences

Answer 18

PACE 84 s24(4) amended by SOCPA 2005 s110 not liable if acted within provisions

Must have been or being committed crime- speedy police involvement

Mental health act 1983 must be strictly followed
Mental incapacity act 2004- challenging legality in psychiatric hospital
Public health (control of disease) act 1984- permits removal and detention.