Personal Torts

Question 1

Collins v Wilcock [1984] (Assault)

Answer 1

An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force to his person

Question 2

Collins v Wilcock [1984] (battery)

Answer 2

a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person

Question 3

Collins v Wilcock [1984] (False imprisonment)

Answer 3

the unlawful imposition of constraint upon another’s freedom of movement from a particular place

Question 4

Stephens v Myers [1830]

Answer 4

Assault - ‘reasonable apprehension’ is an objective test

Question 5

Tuberville v Savage [1669]

Answer 5

Assault - the threat of force must be imminent (assize time)

Question 6

R v Ireland [1998]

Answer 6

Assault - the possibility of immediate force will suffice

Question 7

What case shows the apprehension for assault is judged objectively?

Answer 7

Stephens v Myers [1830]

Question 8

What case shows the threat of assault must be imminent?

Answer 8

Tuberville v Savage [1669]

Question 9

Cole v Turner (1704)

Answer 9

‘the least touching of another in anger is a battery’

Question 10

What are the three elements of battery?

Answer 10

1. Force
2. voluntariness /intention
3. direct

Question 11

Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984]

Answer 11

Shows doctrine of ‘transferred intent’ in battery

Question 12

Williams v Humphrey [1975].

Answer 12

D will be liable for battery even if he did not intend to cause the claimant harm (or the harm never crossed his mind)

Question 13

What case shows the doctrine of ‘transferred intent’

Answer 13

Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984]

Question 14

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969]

Answer 14

A battery can be committed, even if the original action by the defendant was involuntary, if the defendant has the opportunity to stop inflicting the unlawful force and fails to do so.

Question 15

The unlawful touching must be a direct and immediate result of the defendants actions (interpreted flexibly)

Answer 15

Scott v Shepherd [1773]

Question 16

it will only amount to battery where is does not fall within the category of physical contacts ‘generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life’

Answer 16

Collins v Wilcock [1984]

Question 17

Collins v Wilcock [1984]

Answer 17

it will only amount to battery where is does not fall within the category of physical contacts ‘generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life’

Question 18

R v Governor of Brockhill Prison [2001]

Answer 18

The defendant needs to intend to restrict the claimants freedom of movement, it is not necessary for the defendant to do so unlawfully

Question 19

Bird v Jones [1845]

Answer 19

The complete restriction of the claimants movement will not be satisfied if the claimant is able to move in another direction

Question 20

Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd [1910]

Answer 20

Where the defendant imposes reasonable conditions on the manner in which the visitors leaves his premises, the restriction of the claimants freedom will not be considered ‘complete’. (= no false imprisonment).

Question 21

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010]

Answer 21

False imprisonment requires a positive act and cannot be committed by an omission.

Question 22

False imprisonment requires a positive act and cannot be committed by an omission.

Answer 22

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010]

Question 23

Though it is necessary to show a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement, the claimant need not be aware of the restriction

Answer 23

Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988]

Question 24

Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988]

Answer 24

Though it is necessary to show a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement, the claimant need not be aware of the restriction

Question 25

Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2007]

Answer 25

‘Kettling’ is a lawful use of police powers; but can only be used where there is no other way of dealing with the situation

Question 26

R v Billinghurst [1978]

Answer 26

shows that consent may be used as a defence in sports

Question 27

Ashley v Chief constable of West Sussex police [2008]

Answer 27

For the defendant to argue self defence - their belief must be honest and reasonable

Question 28

Cockcroft v Smith [1705]

Answer 28

When arguing self defence, the defendants actions must be proportionate to the force exerted against them.

Question 29

When arguing self defence, the defendants actions must be proportionate to the force exerted against them.

Answer 29

Cockcroft v Smith [1705]

Question 30

For the defendant to argue self defence - their belief must be honest and reasonable

Answer 30

Ashley v Chief constable of West Sussex police [2008]

Question 31

s.3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967

Answer 31

Reasonable force can be used for the prevention of crime or effective a lawful arrest (this doesn’t have to be a police officer)