Trespass Cases

Question 1

Letang v Cooper (Overall rules for trespass)

Answer 1

o Plaintiffs legs were run over by D whilst she was sunbathing in a car park.
o If the running over had been done intentionally the action would be in trespass.
o If unintentionally then the appropriate form of action was negligence.

Question 2

Scott v Shepherd (Application of direct force)

Answer 2

o The throwing on of the firework from the defendant’s initial act did not remove the directness and immediacy of his act.
o Whatever mischief followed his initial act he was the author of it.

Question 3

Williams v Humphrey (Intention in D’s Act)

Answer 3

o Though the injury caused by the defendant’s push was unintentional the original pushing made the act actionable even if the outcome was unforeseen.

Question 4

Livingstone v MOD (Intention in D’s Act)

Answer 4

o Didn’t matter that the soldier hadn’t intended to strike the particular claimant with the rubber bullet.
o The intention to hit a person resulting in the striking of another still founded intention as the act was still deliberate.

Question 5

Bici v MOD (Intention in D’s Act)

Answer 5

o Confirmed Livingstone as sound law.
o Soldiers intention to strike the car resulting in the striking of the claimant could transfer their intention from the initial act to the striking of the claimant.

Question 6

Collins v Wilcock (Lack of consent regarding act)

Answer 6

o Confirmed the accepted standard that contact acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life won’t constitute battery.

Question 7

Stephen v Myers (D’s act caused reasonable apprehension)

Answer 7

o Not every threat constitutes an assault.
o There must in all cases be the means of carrying the threat into effect.
o Although the defendant had been stopped before reaching the claimant unable to carry out his threat, the immediate advance following the threat was enough to cause reasonable apprehension and constitute assault.

Question 8

Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (D’s act caused reasonable apprehension)

Answer 8

o Though the mine workers were threatened as their bus passed the picket lines their apprehension was unfounded due to it being impossible for the threats to be carried out.

Question 9

R v Ireland (D would have the ability to directly and immediately apply force)

Answer 9

o Ended doubt over whether words alone could constitute assault.
o It is not whether the defendant is aware that they do not have the capacity to immediately carry out the act but whether the claimant is aware.
o Though the silent caller had no capacity to directly and immediately apply force the plaintiff did not know this and therefore it could satisfy the criteria.

Question 10

Tuberville v Savage (D would have the ability to directly and immediately apply force)

Answer 10

o The defendant’s words negated an assault.

o If it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you.

Question 11

Bird v Jones (There was detention in which restraint was complete)

Answer 11

o Although the plaintiff was stopped from being able to continue along the footpath blocked by the defendant it had been open for him to go back where he came and proceed in the same direction on the other side of the bridge.

Question 12

Meering v Grahame-White Aviation (There was detention in which restraint was complete)

Answer 12

o The plaintiff was unaware that he would have been prevented from leaving by two police officers outside a room.
o Liability was founded despite his lack of awareness.
o Suggested the ability of a person to be imprisoned whilst he is:
 Asleep.
 In a state of drunkenness.
 Whilst unconscious.
 While he is a lunatic.

Question 13

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association (There was detention in which restraint was complete)

Answer 13

o If D realises the likely consequence of their act or omission will be that the claimant is imprisoned and continues that act or omission this will amount to false imprisonment.

Question 14

Ex parte Evans (no 2) (There was detention in which restraint was complete)

Answer 14

o The prison governors unintentional miscalculation caused a prisoner to be detained for 59 days longer than they should have been.
o This was actionable in false imprisonment.
o It is a tort of strict liability.
o This strikes the right balance between liberty of the subject and the public interest in the detection and punishment of crime.

Question 15

Robinson v Balmain Ferry Co Ltd (Show imprisonment wasn’t expressly or impliedly authorised by law)

Answer 15

o Plaintiff got caught on the wrong side of the defendant’s turnstile and could pass through by paying one penny.
o This was a lawful charge to pass through and it was not accepted that he had been falsely imprisoned.

Question 16

Herd v Weardale Steel Coal and Coke Co (Show imprisonment wasn’t expressly or impliedly authorised by law)

Answer 16

o Owing to the fact that his shift had not ended, a coal miner was refused his request for a lift to the surface.
o His false imprisonment action failed for two reasons:
 He had contractually agreed to a defined period of deprivation of liberty for the duration of his shift, deeming the detention consensual.
 The situation was the result of an omission rather than a positive act by the defendant.

Question 17

Ashley (Self-Defence)

Answer 17

o Where a person is actually under a potentially lethal attack or one is imminent, he is entitled or permitted to defend himself.
o If need be, to kill his assailant.
o The killing is justified.
o In tort the belief that the claimant was in imminent danger of attack must be both mistaken and reasonably held.

Question 18

Revill v Newberry (Self-Defence)

Answer 18

o D slept in his allotment shed with a shotgun following thefts.
o He heard burglars outside the shed discussing robbing it again and fired through a hole in the door injuring one of them.
o Held it wasn’t proportionate to shoot the burglars.
o The assailant or intruder may be met with reasonable force but no more.
o The use of excessive violence against him is an actionable wrong.

Question 19

Chatterton v Gerson (Consent and Necessity)

Answer 19

o Claimant suffered pain after an operation on her leg.
o D was a pain treatment specialist.
o Treated the claimant but she suffered complications.
o Claimant brought an action on the basis that the defendant hadn’t fully warned her of the risks involved in the treatment she’d had.
o Argued her consent wasn’t real because she was unaware of the true risks of the procedure.
o Held that where consent was given in broad terms to a procedure broadly understood that consent would stand as real and true consent.
o Lack of realisation of some potential complication would not negate consent.

Question 20

St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust v S (Consent and Necessity)

Answer 20

o Claimant refused treatment that the Drs said was necessary to avoid a threat to her own life and that of her unborn child.
o Drs felt the decision was so irrational that she could not be competent to make it.
o They had the claimant sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 and forced the treatment on her that way.
o The Drs were deemed unlawful in removing her right to make the decision.
o Her right was not reduced or diminished merely because her decision to exercise it appeared morally repugnant.

Question 21

Re B (Consent and Necessity)

Answer 21

o A woman was left tetraplegic and required artificial respiration to live.
o She decided she didn’t want to live anymore requesting the Dr turn off the ventilator, so she may die.
o Hospital refused this feeling she lacked capacity to make the decision.
o She made a claim that she did have capacity.
o There is a presumption that a patient has the mental capacity to make decisions whether to consent or refuse medical or surgical treatment offered.

Question 22

Re F (Consent and Necessity)

Answer 22

o Woman had the mental age of a child.
o Entered a sexual relationship with another individual and there were concerns about her becoming pregnant.
o Drs applied for a declaration that they would not be acting unlawfully if they carried out a sterilisation procedure.
o In circumstances where you cannot get consent (there is a lack of capacity to give it) treatment may be given where it is necessary to preserve the life, health or well being of the patient.
o The treatment has to be in the patient’s best interests.
o Drs cannot make the final decision, it is the ultimate decision of the court.

Question 23

Ex parte Ian Brady (Consent and Necessity)

Answer 23

o Case regarding child killer Ian Brady.
o Was being detained in a secure mental hospital following his conviction.
o Claim regarded his decision to go on hunger strike and argument that he should not be subjected to force feeding.
o Judge held that force feeding the claimant would be a lawful interference with his bodily integrity.
o His personality disorders meant his decision was not true to himself and therefore he lacked capacity.

Question 24

Ex parte L (Consent and Necessity)

Answer 24

o An autistic man looked after by carers became agitated and was taken to hospital for treatment.
o He’s taken to hospital for treatment.
o The Dr decided he needed to be admitted for treatment.
o Using Mental Health legislation wasn’t necessary as the man showed no desire to leave the hospital.
o If he did try to leave however he would have been prevented.
o Claim was brought in false imprisonment stating it was unlawful to keep him in hospital.
o On one hand it was found because he wasn’t kept on a locked ward the tort of false imprisonment hadn’t been committed.
o On the other hand, his treatment in hospital was justified on the grounds of necessity.
o When the case went to the ECHR they held that this did amount to a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Art 5.
o The narrow defence of necessity could not provide a justification under a human rights action.

Question 25

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and another (Consent and Necessity)

Answer 25

o Case concerned the living arrangements of three people who lacked capacity to consent to those arrangements but none of whom objected to their living conditions.
o Were housed in various institutions or with foster families.
o They were not free to come or go as they pleased.
o In relation to a convention rights claim the court found there was a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Art 5.
 The action would require justification so as not to be deemed unlawful.

Question 26

ZH (Consent and Necessity)

Answer 26

o A severely autistic boy with no speech was taken to a swimming pool.
o He became fascinated with the water and stood close to the edge staring at it.
o When his carers were unable to encourage him away they called the police to assist them in removing him from the side of the pool.
o When the police approach him he fell in.
o After getting him out he became agitated and 5-7 police officers pinned the single boy down.
o The police tried to justify their actions via the defence of necessity.
o Was the action in his best interest?
 No.

Question 27

Commisioner of Police of the Met v Raissi (Lawful Arrest/Prevention of Crime)

Answer 27

o A group were suspected of involvement in the 9/11 bombings.
o The police went too arrest them.
o Was the suspicion reasonable?
o It is the arresting officers who must suspect that the person arrested is guilty of the offence.
o There must be reasonable grounds for that suspicion.
o Was found the officer didn’t have reasonable grounds for suspecting the claimant.

Question 28

Armstrong v CC of West Yorkshire Police (Lawful Arrest/Prevention of Crime)

Answer 28

o A student was the subject of a rape and gave a description of her attacker in a reasonable amount of detail.
o The person the officer had in mind didn’t fit the description exactly.
o The man was arrested.
o He sued for false imprisonment because he had nothing to do with it.
o There had to be discretion relayed to the police.
o The person has to have the reasonable suspicion in the circumstances.

Question 29

Roberts v Chief Constable of Kent (Lawful Arrest/Prevention of Crime)

Answer 29

o The claimant was drunk driving and stopped next to a compound where there had been a number of thefts.
o A police officer saw the car and became suspicious of where he had stopped.
o The officer went to talk to the man and became suspicious that he was a drunk driver.
o The claimant agreed to get out of the car for a breath test and then began to flee the scene.
o The police officer set his dog after the claimant following warnings and the dog bit his leg.
o Claimant argued the force wasn’t reasonable in the circumstances.
o S3(1) may provide a defence to a civil action for assault or battery.

Question 30

Albert v Lavin (Lawful Arrest/Prevention of Crime)

Answer 30

o A person attempted to push into the queue for a bus.
o An off-duty police officer was present and could see others in the queue becoming angry.
o To prevent an outbreak of public disorder he tried to arrest the man.
o The man punched him in the stomach and was charged with assault.
o Had the officer made it clear that he was a police officer?
 This did not matter.
o If you arrest a person as a police office or private citizen with reasonable grounds for suspecting the crime is or has been committed and use reasonable force this will provide a defence.

Question 31

Revill v Newberry (illegality)

Answer 31

o As the would-be burglars hadn’t begun the illegal act the defendant could not rely on the defence of illegality.

Question 32

Lane v Holloway (illegality)

Answer 32

o In an argument between neighbours one man called another mans wife a monkey faced tart.
o The defendant punched the claimant in the face causing serious injury and hospitalising him.
o Bearing in mind that fighting is an illegal act, what action could be brought where a participant is injured?
o Even though both were in an illegal fight because the defendant did something out of proportion it meant the defence fell away.

Question 33

Murphy v Culhane (illegality)

Answer 33

o Demonstrated that you can have more than one defence arising.
o A gang of men planned to beat up the defendant.
o The defendant took pre-emptive action and the claimant died.
o The illegality of the claimant’s actions and his voluntary participation in the fighting could operate as a defence.