Intentional Tort Defences

Question 1

What are the three defences to torts to people

Answer 1

Self defence, defence of property, necessity

Question 2

What does a successful defence mean

Answer 2

That there has been no tort

Question 3

Crockcroft v Smith 1705 👇

Answer 3

Facts: There was a scuffle in a courthouse. Cockcroft was waving his hand near Smith’s eye. Smith bit off part of the Cockcroft’s finger.

• Self-defence must be proportionate to the act (it must be what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances)
  (Self defence)

Question 4

Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police 2008 🙌

Answer 4

Facts: Police came into a man’s house and he shot an unarmed man.

“the necessity to take action in response to an attack or imminent attack must be judged on the facts as the defendant honestly believed them BUT, if he made a mistake of fact, he can rely on that fact only if the mistake was a reasonable one for him to have made

(self defence)

Question 5

Katko v Briney USA 1971🪤

Answer 5

Facts: Owner set a trap to protect his house from trespassers. A person trespassers and results in being shot in the leg.

• A person may not engage in conduct likely to cause serious bodily harm or death to defend property
• Common law puts a lot of importance on life ‘people dying is bad’

DEFENCE OF PROPERTY

Question 6

Southwark London Borough Council v Williams 1971 🏚️

Answer 6

Facts: There were 9000 people looking for housing, so two families squatted (trespassed) in an empty social housing unit.
- Necessity requires imminent danger to life or of serious harm
- This would open doors to stealing houses, food etc being covered by the defence of necessity
- Hunger or homelessness were not considered to meet this threshold
(necessity)

Question 7

F v West Berkshire Health Authority 1990 NZ 🧠 💉 (necessity)

Answer 7

Facts: A person lacked the mental capacity to consent to sterilisation surgery

• Medical necessity is possible where a person lacks capacity to consent, but “the action taken must be such as a reasonable person would in all the circumstances take, acting in the best interests of the assisted person”
  (necessity)

Question 8

Austin v The Commissioner of the Metropolis (PM Starmer) 2009 UKHL🏛️

Answer 8

Facts: Police made the protesters and several others stay in Oxford Circus for 7 hours (cordoned the area off), claiming that they were about the breach the peace. The protestors had no food, toilets, water….

“In this very exceptional case” the judge found that the police containing the crowd was to stop an imminent breach of the peace, and could therefore use the defence of necessity even when the specific claimants did not themselves pose a risk of breach of the peace
(necessity)