Intentional Tort

Question 1

What are the three ways in which trespass to the person can be committed?

Answer 1

1. Battery
2. Assult
3. False imprisonment

Question 2

Must there be damage for a claim to succeed?

Answer 2

No. They all require direct, intentional acts and are actionable per se, that is complete without the need of damage

Question 3

What is the definition of assult and what case provides it?

Answer 3

Lord Goff in Collins v Wilcock

“An act which causes another person to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force upon his person”

Question 4

Can assult be committed by subject recklessness?

Answer 4

Yes. A defendant may force their act will have relevant consequences
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association (2009)
Was charged with battery - throw a stone in a crowded area

Question 5

What are the elements for assult?

Answer 5

1. The defendant intends that the claimant apprehends the application of unlawful force
2. The claimant reasonably apprehends the immediate and direct application of unlawful force
3. For which the defendant has no lawful justification or excuse

Question 6

Why is the need for imminent danger?

Provide a case example…

Answer 6

There is no assult on a claimant unless he/she is made tot hiupbk that they are in imminent danger of being attacked.
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
it was held that Tuberville did not commit an assult when he drew his sword on Savage “if it were not assize-time I would not take such language”
As it was assize time, Tuberville’s words did not lead Savage to believe that Tuberville was about to strike him with a sword”

Question 7

What happens if the claimant knows the assault cannot be carried?
Stephen v Myers [1986]
Thomas v NUM [1986]

Answer 7

If the claimant known that the defendant is not in a position to commit assult there can be no assult.

“There must be means of carrying out the threat”

• The claimant were coal miners who wishes to go to work during the miners strike
• As they entered, the colliery where they worked
• They suffered abuse and threats
• They sought to obtain an injection against the defendants
• Claim rejected: the claimants were already driven away and were separated from the defendants by policemen

Question 8

Does the threat (assult) need to be imminent?

R v Ireland [1998]

Answer 8

Not always - it is not clear for this requirement

• D made a serious of phone calls to three women
• When they answered he remained silent
• All women developed psychiatric illness as a result of the defendant
• Charged with assult and actual bodily harm
• Conviction upheld: silent phone calls could have led the women in question to believe they were about to be attacked by whoever was calling -

Question 9

The claimant must reasonably apprehend immediate infliction of unlawful force - expand on this

Answer 9

For an assult to be committed, the claimant must be made to think that he/she is about to be attacked

Question 10

What is the test for determining to assult?

Answer 10

Stephen v Myers [1830]

Claimant must have reasonably expected an immediate assault

• The defendant made a violent gesture at the claimant
• By waving a clenched fist
• But was prevented from reaching him by the intervention of third-party
• The defendant was liable for assult

Question 11

What must the defendant intent to do?

Answer 11

1. To have acted voluntarily
2. To have intended to cause the claimant apprehend the application of immediate unlawful force
3. To be subjectively reckless to the possibility that their actions would cause this apprehension

Question 12

What did Lord Scott say in Thomas v National Union Miners [1986]

Answer 12

“I do not understand how the most violent threats or gesture could be said to constitute an assault”

Question 13

Battery

Answer 13

For the tort of battery to be committed, a defendant must have directly and voluntarily applied force to the claimant’s body

Question 14

What are the three elements for battery?

Answer 14

1. Intentional application of unlawful force (touching or contact)
2. Direct and immediate
3. No lawful justification (no defence)

Question 15

Element 1 of battery:

Answer 15

Intentional application of unlawful force:
There must be contact from the defendant to the claimant. It will also be satisfied if
(i) the claimant is hit by something thrown baby the defendant, whether or not the defendant intended to throw the thing at the claimant
(Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984]

(ii) if the defendant removes something that the claimant is sitting on, with the result that the claimant falls on the ground
D could be liable without the intent to cause harm, just intent to apply force
(Williams v Humphrey [1975]

Question 16

Element 1 Continued: Initial action voluntary

Answer 16

This element will not be satisfied where the defendant was not in control of his body at the time he touched the claimant

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969]

• D accidentally drove his car onto a police officers food
• D became aware but failed to remove the car
• His initial act was unintentional BUT failure to remove the car satisfied the element of intent

Question 17

Element 2: Direct and immediate

Answer 17

The requirement that the defendant directly apply force to the claimant’s body is a major limit on the scope of the tort of battery.

Thomas v NUM [1986] - where the claimant although violently threatened was safe inside a van with police escort

Question 18

What did Wilson v Pringle [1987] and Lord Goff in F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1990] as on intent and hostile touching?

Answer 18

Wilson v Pringle “an intent to injure is not essential to an action for battery”

• A schoolboy during ‘horse play’ pulled on a friends bag, which caused him to fall
• He injured his hip
• HELD: The defendant could not have been held to have committed a battery unless he acted in a hostile way

Lord Goff
‘hostile way’ was not adequately explained. Hostile = ‘touching of another’s body, beyond the bounds of acceptable everyday conduct’

Question 19

Battery and the element of causation

Answer 19

Scott v Shepherd [1773]

• Defendant threw a lighted squid (small bomb) made of gunpowder, into a market, it landed near Y who threw it across the marketplace
• It landed next to R who picked it up and threw it to another part of the marketplace
• The bomb then stuck S in the face causing loss of use of his eye
  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
  There was no break in the chain of causation novus actus interveniens

Question 20

What is false imprisonment?

Answer 20

Collins v Wilcock per lord Goff “Unlawful imposition of constraint on another’s freedom of movement from a particular place”

Question 21

What are the element of false imprisonment?

Answer 21

1. Defendant must intend to restrict the claimant’s freedom of movement
2. No need to show force or resistance
3. No need to show damage : Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988]
4. Any action that completely deprives freedom and has no lawful excuse

Question 21

What are the element of false imprisonment?

Answer 21

1. Defendant must intend to restrict the claimant’s freedom of movement
2. No need to show force or resistance
   2.

Question 22

What amounts to actionable false imprisonment?

Answer 22

1. Restriction of freedom : The requirement is that a claimant’s freedom of movement be completely restricted to a defined area
   Bird v Jones [1845]
   - The claimant was prevented from walking along a public right of way by the defendant
   - Who has set up a partial obstruction
   - Claimant not falsely imprisoned because his freedom of movement has only been restricted in one direction

Question 23

Intention: the defendant must intend to restrict freedom (expand)

Answer 23

The defendant must have done a positive act that directly resulted in the restriction
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010]
- A number of person warders failed to turn up to work
- With the result that the claimant prisoner could not be led out of his cell at the time he would normally be let out
- The prisoner warder’s failure to turn up to work did not make them liable to the claimant for false imprisonment

Question 24

Without legal authorisation

Answer 24

This speaks on if the defendant is a public body (Human Rights Act 1998)

Article 5 ECHR (Right to liberty and security)
Auction and others v Metropolitan Police Commissioners [2005]
- Complaint by a demonstrator and some passer-by that they were not allowed to exit a police cordon for almost 7 hours during a protest against globalisation in London
HOUSE OF LORDS:
False imprisonment not accepted, held police actions in good faith, proportionate and necessary

Question 25

For trespass to the person to be allowed a defence what must be in place?

Answer 25

1. Lawful/statutory authority
2. Consent
3. Necessity
4. Self-defence

Question 26

Element of consent (including medical cases)

Answer 26

F v Berkshire per Lord Goff
“as a general rule physical interference with another person’s body is lawful if he consents to it; though in certain limited circumstances the public interest may require that his consent is not capable of rendering the act lawful”

However, normally there will be no trespass to the person if the claimant consents to the application of force

Lord Smith in Iqbal v Police Officers Association [2010] stated…
“with false imprisonment…the claimant must show…an intention to deprive the claimant of his liberty”

Question 27

What about consent in medical cases? Chatterton v Gerson [1981]

Answer 27

There will be no batter if the patient gives valid consent to treatment. HOWEVER, if patient agreed that Doctor could do this but not actually understand what Doctor was proposing to do, because Doctor did not bother to explain to patient what such an injection involved - then it cannot be said that the patient validly consented to Doctor’s giving her such an injection

This would amount to negligence

Question 28

Element of necessity

Answer 28

Lord Goff in R v West Berkshire [1990] ‘There are also specific cases where physical interference without consent may not be unlawful’

Medical necessity where claimant is unable to consent
F v West Berkshire [1990] ‘unconscious but competent) Doctor’s may intervene in the best interest of the claimant

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]
Coma or mentally ill

Question 29

Element of self-defence

Answer 29

There must be a honest belief of imminent attack (even if unreasonable) BUT tort defendant’s belief must be honest and reasonable

Ashley v Chief Constable of West Sussex Police [2008]
The issue was whether self-defence in a case where the claimant acted in the mistaken belief that he was in imminent danger of being attacked, required such mistaken belief to have been not only honestly but also reasonably held.

Question 30

The need for proportionality relating to self-defence cases

Answer 30

REMEMBER:
The defendant’s action must be proportionate ( Crockroft v Smith 1705) D’s finger bitten off whilst having it extended when running

Lane v Holloway [1968]

• D punched C and he needed to go to the hospital
• D was liable as the sever blow was not proportionate compared to the attempted blow by C

Question 31

Why has trespass to the person loss most of its significance

Answer 31

1. Existence of criminal injuries compensation scheme
2. Development go negligence, which has became the principal vehicle for litigation concerning personal injury
3. Sidaway v Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985]
   Medical injury is now a case of negligence not battery

Question 32

What about intentional infliction of physical harm or distress?
Rule in Wilkinson v Downton

Answer 32

For intentional act BUT not indirect harm claimant turn to the rule in Wilkinson v Downton

• C falsely told husband they was seriously injured in an accident
• D claimed it was a joke
• C suffered physical and psychological reaction
  Conditions for a tort where a person who acts intentionally with the result that injury is indirectly caused are that it should be proven that…

1. D intended to infringe C’s right to personal safety or his/her interest in their freedom from harm,
2. Actual injury, physical or rechgoniabkle psychiatric
3. Not actionable per se

Question 33

The protection from Harassment Act 1997

Answer 33

Protection from harassment act introduces
a civil remedy for harassment - injection, damages and criminal sanctions for non-compliance

section 1(1) ‘A person must not pursue a course of conduct (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment of another