Trespass to the person

Question 1

Assault

Answer 1

an assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on person - Goff LJ, Collins v Wilcok***

Question 2

Intentional Act

Answer 2

deliberate act by the D, acted voluntarily victim sees that an attack is imminent

Question 3

Stephen v Myers

Answer 3

C was acting as chair, got into angry discussion, tells D to leave. D threaten the C saying he would rather threw the C out of his chair than leave, then clenched his fist. In relation to intentional act

Question 4

Thomas v NUM

Answer 4

miner strike, sought injunction against union to prevent its members from verbally abusing and harassing the,. not assault. differing assault when conduct is absent

Question 5

R v Meade + Belt

Answer 5

The defendants surrounded the victim’s house singing threatening and menacing songs.
Held: No assault was committed.
Holroyd J “no words or singing are equivalent to an assault

Question 6

R v Ireland

Answer 6

D made silent calls to victims, suffering psychiatric illness. HL+ Lord Steyn - accept silence would be capable of immediate threat

Question 7

Reasonable Fear

Answer 7

reasonableness is judged according to the C’s perception of D’s Actions

Question 8

Battery

Answer 8

is the intentional and direct application of force to another person

Question 9

Intention of Battery

Answer 9

D intentionally makes contact with body/clothing of C. Foreseeable of the D’s actions

Question 10

Wilson v Pringle

Answer 10

School boy prank, D pulled the C’s Bag causing them to fall over and suffer hip injuries. Hostility was a necessary element of actionable battery

Question 11

Force - Application

Answer 11

any physical contact with the body of the C, not personal contact; one body to anther

Question 12

Scott v Shepherd

Answer 12

D threw a lit firework into a crowded market, thrown again by third party, then hit victim in the eye. D IS STILL LIABLE - In relation to contact by third party. Directly applied force, through the means of other persons when the firework eventually exploded into victim. liberal interpretation

Question 13

Pursell v Horn

Answer 13

Committed a battery. D threw hot water over C and was liable despite the indirect nature. In relation to contact made indirectly. It was the contact that was sufficient for battery

Question 14

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 14

a police woman took hold of woman’s arm to stop her walking off, when she was questioning her women scratched the police, and was charged with assaulting a police officer in the course of her duty. Lord Goff felt that the test was ‘whether or not the contact was acceptable within the conduct of normal life’. Self defense/ no more force that was used than is reasonably necessary in circumstances

Question 15

Defenses to Assault and Battery: Lawful Authority

Answer 15

a person who uses reasonable force in effecting a lawful arrest does not commit a battery. BUT a person who uses force in effecting an unlawful arrest may be liable for battery

Question 16

Defenses to Assault and Battery: Self-Defense

Answer 16

reasonable force in the defense self and others; use of force must be necessary, amount of force used must be reasonable

Question 17

Cross v Kirkby

Answer 17

the two got into the alteration C got hit, D removed C, C attacked D w/ baseball bat, D got bat from C + fractured head of C. CA= self defense

Question 18

Defenses to Assault and Battery: Consent

Answer 18

no tort committed if consent given to the procedure

Question 19

Defense to Assault and Battery: Consent - Medical Treatment for Adults

Answer 19

real consent; informed in broad terms of the nature of the procedure

Question 20

Chatterton v Gerson

Answer 20

C operation to reduce pain from a post - operative scar. After operation C lost feeling in her right leg. Held; she understood the general nature of the operation and consent was real. if anything negligence could be used not trespass

Question 21

Defense to Assault and Battery: Competent Decision

Answer 21

understanding the full extent of the procedure and making a decision off of that. Mental Capacity act 2005

Question 22

Defense to Assault and Battery: Competent Adult Refusal

Answer 22

even if they die, doctor will do what they think is right.

F v West Berkshire

Question 23

F v West Berkshire

Answer 23

considering sterilization of women who was unable to give consent. doctor considered it to be in the best interest of the patient. In relation to Defense to Assault and Battery: Competent Adult Refusal

Question 24

Defense to Assault and Battery: Consent to Medical Treatment of Childern

Answer 24

Family law Reform Act 1969 s. 8(1): presumption capacity to consent to medical treatment at 16. Under 16; sufficient understanding and intelligence

Question 25

Gillick v West Norfolk

Answer 25

Mother with 5 daughters under the age of 16, thought ti was unlawful for a doctor to prescribe contraceptives to girls w/o knowledge/consent of the parent.
Lord Fraser: Doctor justified in proceeding w/o parents consent/even knowledge, best interest of the patient

Question 26

False Imprisonment

Answer 26

The infliction of bodily restrain which is not expressly or implied authorized by the law. Restrain C’s movement

Question 27

Requirements for Actionable Claim for False Imprisonment

Answer 27

1. D must intend or be reckless to restrict C’s movement
2. Must be a complete restriction of C’s freedom of movement
3. Must be done w/o lawful authorization

Question 28

Requirements for Actionable Claim for False Imprisonment : Intention

Answer 28

Prison Officer Association v Label: C claiming false imprisonment. Prison officer had unlawful strike, leaving C in his cell unable to be involved in normal activities. Cannot be through omissions

Question 29

Requirements for Actionable Claim for False Imprisonment : Complete Restriction of Movement

Answer 29

Bird v Jones: C partially crossed bridge when it was closed during a race. Prevented the C from using the foot way, his freedom of movement was not completely restrained. D not liable for false imprisonment. Partial restraint. There were alternatives.

Question 30

Requirements for Actionable Claim for False Imprisonment : Without Legal Authorization

Answer 30

Austin + others v Commission of Police of the Metropolis: police restricting the movement of 3,000 people in a march. This was total restraint. C was prevented from leaving for several hours. Claimed false imprisonment via Article 5 - Breach of Liberty

Question 31

The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton

Answer 31

Indirect Harm
D falsely told the C that her husband had been injured in accident. Untrue/practical joke. C suffered serious shock. C needs to be able to show that they have been harmed by D’s conduct. The D need not intend the harm of C, in order to be held liable under the rule. The negligence/carelessness will suffice.
Wright J - harm was the natural and probably consequence of the D’s act. a person who has willfully done an act to cause physical harm to the C, to infringe legal right to safety, then they have caused psychical harm. psychiatric harm was physical, providing remedy for this

Question 32

Wainwright + Another v Home Office

Answer 32

C and mother went to visit step brother in prison, they were strip searched for drugs, breach of prison rules, leaving them humiliated and distressed. HL had been asked to declared whether an action for invasion of privacy exist in English law.
Lord Hoffman: Held that liability would require the D to have acted w/o caring whether they caused harm recklessly - Not established/ need to extend the principles in Wilkinson to provide remedy for invasion of privacy to comply with ECHR

Question 33

Harassment Act 1997

Answer 33

Act was a repose to increasing public concern about harassment/stalking = Princess Diana + Sienna Miller
Defined as the pursuit of a course of conduct that the D knows/ ought to know amounts to harassment of another ->

Question 34

Harassment Act 1997

Answer 34

• Act was a repose to increasing public concern about harassment/stalking = Princess Diana + Sienna Miller
• Defined as the pursuit of a course of conduct that the D knows/ ought to know amounts to harassment of another -> S. 1 Harassment act
• Conduct = at least two occasions = Wilkinson
• Objective test - Know/ ought to know - causing mental distress, intend to do this by your action - effect of this, mental distress becomes psychiatric harm, injunction to prevent this

Question 35

Majrowski v guy + St Thomas

Answer 35

one employee harassing another for being gay