Trespass to the person Flashcards
Assault
an assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on person - Goff LJ, Collins v Wilcok***
Intentional Act
deliberate act by the D, acted voluntarily victim sees that an attack is imminent
Stephen v Myers
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
Thomas v NUM
miner strike, sought injunction against union to prevent its members from verbally abusing and harassing the,. not assault. differing assault when conduct is absent
R v Meade + Belt
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
R v Ireland
D made silent calls to victims, suffering psychiatric illness. HL+ Lord Steyn - accept silence would be capable of immediate threat
Reasonable Fear
reasonableness is judged according to the C’s perception of D’s Actions
Battery
is the intentional and direct application of force to another person
Intention of Battery
D intentionally makes contact with body/clothing of C. Foreseeable of the D’s actions
Wilson v Pringle
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
Force - Application
any physical contact with the body of the C, not personal contact; one body to anther
Scott v Shepherd
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
Pursell v Horn
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
Collins v Wilcock
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
Defenses to Assault and Battery: Lawful Authority
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
Defenses to Assault and Battery: Self-Defense
reasonable force in the defense self and others; use of force must be necessary, amount of force used must be reasonable
Cross v Kirkby
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
Defenses to Assault and Battery: Consent
no tort committed if consent given to the procedure
Defense to Assault and Battery: Consent - Medical Treatment for Adults
real consent; informed in broad terms of the nature of the procedure
Chatterton v Gerson
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
Defense to Assault and Battery: Competent Decision
understanding the full extent of the procedure and making a decision off of that. Mental Capacity act 2005
Defense to Assault and Battery: Competent Adult Refusal
even if they die, doctor will do what they think is right.
F v West Berkshire
F v West Berkshire
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
Defense to Assault and Battery: Consent to Medical Treatment of Childern
Family law Reform Act 1969 s. 8(1): presumption capacity to consent to medical treatment at 16. Under 16; sufficient understanding and intelligence
Gillick v West Norfolk
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
False Imprisonment
The infliction of bodily restrain which is not expressly or implied authorized by the law. Restrain C’s movement
Requirements for Actionable Claim for False Imprisonment
- D must intend or be reckless to restrict C’s movement
- Must be a complete restriction of C’s freedom of movement
- Must be done w/o lawful authorization
Requirements for Actionable Claim for False Imprisonment : Intention
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
Requirements for Actionable Claim for False Imprisonment : Complete Restriction of Movement
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.
Requirements for Actionable Claim for False Imprisonment : Without Legal Authorization
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
The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton
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
Wainwright + Another v Home Office
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
Harassment Act 1997
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 ->
Harassment Act 1997
- 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
Majrowski v guy + St Thomas
one employee harassing another for being gay
