trespass 2 Flashcards
what is battery
‘The actual infliction of unlawful force on another person’
what case did the definition of battery come from
Collins v Wilcock
what did Lord Denning say could be a battery in R v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall
‘An unwanted kiss may be a battery although the defendant’s intention may be most amiable’
what is the intention
- what does it include
- what needs to be intended and what doesn’t need to be intended
- Intention includes subjective recklessness
- Intention as to the contact, not the consequences / consequential harm (D does not have to intend that the contact was unlawful)
case for intention
Williams v Humphrey
what did courts hold in Williams v Humphrey (consequential harms)
even if the act is intentional. you don’t need to intend the harmful consequence for there to be a battery
trespass must be what 2 things
direct and immediate
what case does the idea of direct and immediate come from
Reynolds v Clarke- Fortescue CJ
what is the difference between negligence and trespass
- Trespass: intention
- Negligence: unreasonable conduct
what was questioned in Scott v Shepherd
what directness means
what was held in Scott v Shepherd
that there was direct enough action between the D and c for battery as the stall holders did not act voluntarily, they acted in the heat of the moment, to protect themselves and their goods. Therefore, there was battery
is hostility required
no
hostility
what did Lord Holt say in Cole v Turner
‘the least touching of another in anger is a battery’
hostility
what does Goff LJ say in Collins v Wilcock
-Must be beyond that which is ‘generally accepted in the ordinary conduct of daily life’
outcome in Collins v Wilcock
There was no need for the lady to be restrained. So, the officer committed battery, court accepted this. There was no lawful authority to restrain her.
whether hostility is needed, was questioned in what case
Wilson v Pringle
what was concluded by Goff LJ in Re F
- that a line should be drawn between what we accept in everyday life and what we don’t accept
- this could fall along gendered lines, men and women may have different views on what is sexual and not sexual touching etc
what statutory provision determines whether the police acted in a lawful or unlawful way
PACE act 1984
case for police powers
-Pile v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
outcome in Pile
Mr Justice Taylor found that it was lawful to change her clothes as it was for hygiene purposes- there was a section in the police powers which stated this is lawful
definition of an assault
An act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person’
what case did the definition of assault come from
Collins v Wilcock
outcome in Thomas v National Union of Miners (NUM)
3
there were police separating the working and striking miners,
- therefore the court held that D’s didn’t have the means of carrying out the threat as any physical actions would have been prevented by the police.
- It didn’t constitute assault.
Gestures, words, and silence
outcome in R v Meade and Belt
no words or singing are equivalent to assault’
Gestures, words, and silence
outcome in Tuberville v Savage
words can negate actions
Gestures, words, and silence
R v Ireland outcome
- Lord Steyn held that silent calls could constitute an assault as it could cause a person to fear the possibility of immediate unlawful force
assault
Read v Coker outcome
court held that a conditional threat still constitutes an assault
assault
Stephen v Myres outcome
- Although no battery took place, the court said that the D had a reasonable apprehension that force may still occur- there was an assault.
- apprehension of force must be reasonable
what did Conaghan say about men and women in ‘Gendered harms and the role of tort’
that men and women may see sexual acts, behaviour and propositions differently, so different things may or may not be ‘threatening’
what did Magruder say when it comes to sexual touching etc
‘there is no harm in asking’
what is false imprisonment
The unlawful imposition of constraint on another’s freedom of movement from a particular place’
Hague v Deputy Governor of Pankhurst Prison and Others
outcome
that if the detention is lawful but the conditions of the detention are in breach of prison rules, there is no FI- no compensation allowed to be given
what is the criticism from Lumba
that false imprisonment is no longer protecting satisfactory against abuses of power
what does Article 5(4) ECHR state
-‘Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful’.
What does Steele say about Lumba and Hague
‘it has become much harder to maintain that false imprisonment operates satisfactorily as a constitutional tort, protecting against abuse of power’
Parker v Chief Constable of Essex outcome
if a third party did have a reasonable cause, another police officer, to suspect that someone committed an offence, and if they had been the person to conduct the arrest, then it would have been lawful
what three things must be present for there to be FI as seen as in Iqbal v POA
- intention for FI
- directness between C and D
- positive action e.g. locking a door
Bird v Jones outcome (2)
- there must be complete restriction of movement for there to be FI
- no reasonable means of escape
Robinson v Balmain outcome
there was reasonable means of escape so no FI
Jollah v SoS outcome
- His movement was completely restricted, because if he left he would have faced criminal sanctions so he wasn’t voluntarily staying in one place
- False imprisonment
Walker v Commissioner of Police (unlawfulness)
2
- Unlawfulness often depends on the powers of arrest or detention
- If there is no lawful ground for an officer to detain someone it is false imprisonment
CC of Thames Valley Police outcome
There was false imprisonment because the extent of the search warrant only extended to the officer’s searching the premises, not the people on the premises
Austin and Others outcome
3
- There was false imprisonment
- But D had a defence of necessity
- No breach of Article 5- right to liberty
Brockhill Prison outcome
- D has to intend imprisonment but not it being unlawful
- Being detained longer than one needs to be is FI
