Trespass to the Person

Question 1

What happened in Letang v Cooper and what was held?

Answer 1

Man ran over woman who was sunbathing in car park

Held - Trespass torts require directness and intention

Question 2

How do we define battery?

Answer 2

Any application of force onto another may constitute a battery (Collins v Wilcock)

Question 3

Rule from Fagan?

Answer 3

You can be liable for failing to remove your car from an officer’s foot (battery). Omission cannot create battery but driving car onto officer’s foot and refusing to move was not an omission, it was a ‘continual act’.

Question 4

Scott v Shepherd (Flying Squib) and Breslin

Answer 4

Scott - Transferred intention possible. Bystanders throwing the squib away did not break chain of causation, as they were not free agents and did so to protect themselves, so it just continued the defendant’s action.

Shepherd - Bomb can cause a battery

Question 5

DPP v K

Answer 5

Time lag is possible in battery (man left acid in hair dryer)

Question 6

Implied consent case and quote

Answer 6

Wilcock - Conduct which is generally acceptable in the course of everyday life will not amount to battery

Question 7

Bici authority for what?

Answer 7

Bici - Transferred malice possible in battery. Recklessness may suffice for intention where one subjectively appreciates the risk of harm, but is indifferent to it.

Recklessness also applies for assault - defendant must appreciate the risk of causing the claimant to apprehend an immediate battery, and be indifferent to it.
No transferred malice for assault though.

Question 8

Battery cases involving drunk people?

Answer 8

McMillan v CPS - Police grabbed disorderly lady and escorted her to footpath - Applied Wilcock - conduct acceptable in ordinary course of everyday life

Marland v DPP - Grabbing someone (even if they are drunk) who blatantly does not consent is not acceptable unless necessary eg to save their life.

Pile - Woman very dirty and vomit-soaked clothes - police were OK to strip her in accordance with their powers.

Question 9

Requirements of assault

Answer 9

Reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery (R v Ireland)

Question 10

R v Ireland case

Answer 10

Man made late-night phone calls to women - convicted of assault. Assault requires reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery and words (or silent calls) may suffice.
No requirement of proximity, just a sense of it.

Question 11

Tuberville v Savage

Answer 11

Conditional threats may rule out assault but depends on threat and how imminent/likely it is. ‘If it were not assize time I would attack you’ is not sufficient

Question 12

Thomas v NUM and Stephens v Myers rule?

Answer 12

Thomas - The threat needs to be possible in order for assault to be made. Here, striking miners were blocked by police cordon.

Stephens - Even though man stopped from punching, he would have reached claimant if not for crowd, sufficient for assault.

Question 13

Online grooming assault case?

Answer 13

Rex v First-Tier Tribunal - Grooming through Facebook can suffice to assault

Question 14

Mbasogo v Logo

Answer 14

Defendant was alleged to have conspired to overthrow government of Equatorial Guinea, causing the President fear and distress.
Held that he did not have the capacity to carry out the threat, and there was also no overt act causing the apprehension of immediate violence.

Question 15

Wilson v Pringle

Answer 15

To prove battery, we need to prove that there was intentional touching and that the touching was hostile. No need to show intent to injure.

Question 16

Kaye v Robertson

Answer 16

Shining bright light or using flash to someone’s face, injuring their sight or damaging them may be a battery.

Question 17

Defences to trespass?

Answer 17

Consent, necessity, lawful authority, self-defence, Criminal Justice Act 2003

Question 18

Consent

Answer 18

1. Implied consent (Collins)
2. Consent in sports - can be inferred in boxing/wrestling however for other contact sports ordinary fouls don’t suffice, a battery would need to be some off-the-ball incident, unrelated to normal play (Blake v Galloway). In this case, children throwing bark at each other consented to risk of being struck. Liability in negligence only if D reckless or very high degree of carelessness.
3. Medical? Chatterson v Gerson - Consent necessary, but once patient understands general nature of operation action not available in trespass, only negligence.

Question 19

False Imprisonment Definition

Answer 19

Total deprivation of the liberty of another

Question 20

Bird v Jones

Answer 20

No imprisonment if reasonable means of escape. Restraint must be total, not just blocking you from one direction.

Question 21

Consent to imprisonment cases?

Answer 21

Robinson - Man blocked from exiting wharf without paying, held that this wasn’t imprisonment - they were just asking him to leave in the way he contracted.

Herd v Weardale - Miner wanted to be taken to the surface, held that there was no reason why the employer should use special machinery to lift him up when he agreed to enter the pit and the employers were only contractually obliged to lift him up at the end.

Question 22

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association

Answer 22

Mere failure of prison officers to work at the prison (by going on strike) was no positive action. Defendant not to be liable for FI due to an omission unless they had a specific duty to release C.

Direct and immediate causal link also needed between act and imprisonment.

Question 23

Davidson v Chief Constable

Answer 23

A store detective giving information to the police which results in arrest is not liable for false imprisonment unless he has gone further to act as instigator or inciter of the arrest

Question 24

Lumba

Answer 24

It is still false imprisonment if you are arrested unlawfully but you could have been lawfully arrested. However, relevant to question of damages (nominal)

Question 25

Medical Necessity as a defence? Re F (Sterilisation)

Answer 25

Doctors are able to operate on adults who are unable to consent due to emergency or mental disability, if the treatment is in the patient's best interests.

Question 26

Overall law on incapacitous persons

Answer 26

Re F - Operation possible where in best interests. MCA 2005 - Reaffirms this Aintree - Patient's beliefs and values should be taken into account ZH v Commissioner - Emergency situation may mean no liability if they thought it was in best interests. However on facts, the emergency was not so bad that the police couldn't consult carers first.

Question 27

Lawful Authority as a defence

Answer 27

Hague - Authority to imprison is authorised by statute, no liability. However in Lumba, if person is unlawfully imprisoned then there is a claim even if they could have been lawfully detained.

Question 28

Self-Defence?

Answer 28

Necessary and proportionate force to defend yourself, another or your property from an attack - Cross v Kirkby - this was fine as he hit the man with a bat but was being attacked by him first with one.

Question 29

Ashley v Chief Constable

Answer 29

For self-defence, if D is mistaken, their belief must be both honest and reasonable. Self-defence may extend to fatal force.

Question 30

W80 v Director General

Answer 30

Police officers held to civil law standard - honest and reasonable belief required.

Question 31

McCarthy

Answer 31

Police officer failing to release trigger of his taser after the recommended time was not unlawful and was not battery, since he was subduing a violent situation and did not intend the long discharge but was distracted by threat of attack.

Question 32

Criminal Justice Act 2003 s329

Answer 32

Protects defendant where they are acting to prevent claimant from committing a defence/defend themselves or another/protect property/secure arrest However, proceedings can only be brought if there is evidence that D was not doing the above/D was acting grossly disproportionately. Once proceedings brought, D must prove he was doing the above AND that he was not grossly disproportionate.

Question 33

Wilkinson v Downton

Answer 33

Man told woman her husband's legs were broken and he was stranded - she enters state of shock and mental distress. Liability found where defendant 'has done an act calculated to cause physical harm' to the plaintiff.

Question 34

Subsequent development of Wilkinson tort

Answer 34

Wainwright - no liability for prison officers for doing strip searches, no intention to cause distress. Rhodes v OPO - Mother sought to stop father publishing book with details of sexual assault. Held that there is a 3 part test for this tort: 1. Conduct element - Words or conduct for which there is no justification or reasonable excuse 2. Mental - Intention to cause phys harm or severe mental or emotional distress (recklessness not sufficient) 3. Consequence - Evidence of physical harm or recognised psych illness MXX v A Secondary School - Tort was found during grooming of schoolchild

Question 35

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 S1

Answer 35

S1: Course of conduct amounting to harassment which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment S1A: Harassment of two or more persons and by which he intends to persuade any person not to do something they are entitled to do or to do something that they are not under an obligation to do. S1(2): Reasonable person test for determining whether someone ought to know it amounts to harassment (objective standard) S1(3): Defences (crime prevention, done under a rule of law or that it was reasonable in circumstances)

Question 36

S3 PHA 1997

Answer 36

Discusses civil remedy - Damages for anxiety and financial loss - Injunction (arrest warrant for breach)

Question 37

What type of conduct is caught by 'harassment'?

Answer 37

Majrowski - Courts must recognise boundary between conduct which is unattractive/unreasonable and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable.

Question 38

Iqbal v Dean Manson

Answer 38

The harassment can arise from the course of conduct rather than each instance which constitutes the course of conduct.

Question 39

Jones v Ruth - foreseeable?

Answer 39

Harm/injury doesn't need to be foreseeable result - defendant responsible for it regardless.

Question 40

Levi v Bates (foreseeable victims)?

Answer 40

D doesn't need to target C specifically - it is sufficient if C is a foreseeable victim of the harassment

Question 41

Ferguson v British Gas

Answer 41

British Gas sending repeated unjustified threatening letters and bills was sufficient to constitute harassment.

Question 42

Hayes v Willoughby - preventing crime?

Answer 42

Concerned the defence under s3(a) - that they were pursuing it for the purpose of preventing crime. SC considered whether it can apply if D thought they were, but this is objectively unreasonable. Not appropriate to just look subjectively at what they thought, since some people may be suffering delusions Adopted requirement of rationality - an absense of capriciousness and a requirement of good faith and some logical connection.

Question 43

Walker

Answer 43

False imprisonment can occur even for a short duration

Question 44

Murray - imprisonment without knowledge

Answer 44

Murray - you can be falsely imprisoned without knowing it, although damages nominal