Trespass to the Person

Question 1

Bird v Jones

Answer 1

Ratio: There must be a complete restriction of freedom for there to be false imprisonment.

Facts: A claimant tried to sue for false imprisonment when a bridge he wanted to cross was blocked. He was not successful since he had an alternative route.

Question 2

Cole v Turner

Answer 2

Ratio: The least amount of touching in anger is sufficient for battery.

Question 3

Davidson v CC of North Wales

Answer 3

Ratio: Words can be sufficient for false imprisonment.

Facts: A threat ‘not to move or you’ll be harmed’ can suffice. Davidson was held in a shop against his will after the shopkeeper accused him of theft.

Question 4

DPP v K

Answer 4

Ratio: Force can be applied indirectly for the purpose of battery.

Facts: A schoolboy places acid in a hand-drier - held to be a battery.

Question 5

Fagan v MPC

Answer 5

Ratio: 1. Assault = ‘any act which, intentionally or recklessly, causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence’.

Facts: A man accidentally reversed onto a policeman’s foot and then refused to move.

Question 6

Fowler v Lanning

Answer 6

Ratio: Trespass to the person must be intentional.

Facts: Defendant shot the claimant, but it was unclear whether the shooting was intentional or negligent.

Question 7

Meering v Grahame-White Aviation

Answer 7

Ratio: The claimant does not need to be aware of the false imprisonment.

Facts: Claimant was asked to wait in a room on suspicion of theft. He was not told that the policemen with him would not allow him to leave.

Question 8

OPO v MLA

Answer 8

Ratio: Under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton, ‘wilfully’ doing an act means intentionally doing it, and that intention can be imputed by the court. The ‘act’ can include actions other than just threats and words, in this case, it could include publishing a book. ‘Cause’ includes directly and indirectly causing harm.

Facts: MLA wished to publish a man’s semi-autobiographical book about mental illness and sexual assault, dedicated to his son. His divorced wife was granted an interim injunction on the grounds that it might cause psychiatric harm to the child, who had Aspergers and other learning difficulties.

Question 9

R v Brown

Answer 9

Ratio: It is not possible to consent to anything more serious than a battery.

Facts: A group of defendants consensually took part in sadomasochism, in private, where they all inflicted and received injury, some serious. Held it was not possible to consent to the more serious injuries.

Question 10

R v Cotesworth

Answer 10

Ratio: Spitting is sufficient application of force for the purpose of battery.

Question 11

R v Ireland

Answer 11

Ratio: 1. Silence can constitute assault. 2. ‘Immediate’ means ‘imminent’.

Facts: Defendant repeatedly made silent phone calls to a number of women.

Question 12

R v Wilson

Answer 12

Ratio: Where the law permits consent, i.e. for body adornments, it can be a defence to battery.

Facts: A man tattooed his initials onto his wife’s bum with her consent.

Question 13

Reynolds v Clarke

Answer 13

Ratio: Harm must be direct and immediate. Force can be indirect.

Facts: A long was thrown onto a highway, causing harm.

Question 14

Robinson v Balmain Ferry

Answer 14

Ratio: Where a person has been given permission by another to enter premises under specific conditions of exit, it is not false imprisonment on the part of the person giving permission to not allow that person to leave until he satisfies those conditions.

Facts: Robinson tried to leave a ferry terminal after changing his mind about going on a ferry. He had entered with the agreement that he would have to pay a penny to leave. He unsuccessfully argued false imprisonment.

Question 15

Sayer v Harlow

Answer 15

Ratio: False imprisonment must be an act, not an omission, and must be direct and intentional.

Facts: A woman was accidentally locked in a public toilet.

Question 16

Scott v Shepherd

Answer 16

Ratio: Force can be applied indirectly, such as via a projectile.

Facts: Shepherd threw a firecracker into a market, which was thrown away instinctively by a market trader. It hit Scott and exploded.

Question 17

Stephens v Myers

Answer 17

Ratio: It must be possible to carry out the threat for there to be an assault.

Facts: The defendant raised his fists and advanced towards the chairman of the meeting, but was blocked from getting to him by third parties. This was still an assault.

Question 18

Thomas V NUM

Answer 18

Ratio: Apprehension is tested objectively for assault.

Facts: Miners going to work in armoured vehicles had abuse shouted at them during the strikes. Held they could not have objectively apprehended assault as they were under police protection.

Question 19

Tuberville v Savage

Answer 19

Ratio: Words can negate an assault.

Facts: Tuberville responded to an insult by saying ‘if it were not assize time, I would run you through with my sword’. His words negated the fact he put his hand on his sword.

Question 20

Wilkinson v Downton

Answer 20

Ratio: Established ‘The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton’ - this tort occurs when ‘the defendant wilfully [does] an act calculated to cause physical harm to [the claimant] … and thereby has in fact caused physical harm to the claimant.

Facts: Downton told Wilkinson that her husband had been seriously hurt as a joke. She suffered physical and mental harm as a result.

Question 21

Wong v Parkside Health

Answer 21

Ratio: Harm, for the purposes of the rule in Wilkinson v Downton, means ‘physical harm or recognised psychiatric illness’.

Facts: Mrs Wong complained that she had been bullied at work. However, since she had suffered no recognisable psychiatric damage she could not recover.

Question 22

Wilson v Pringle

Answer 22

Ratio: Battery requires an element of hostility. Horseplay will not constitute a battery.

Facts: Two schoolchildren were playing when one was injured.

Question 23

Innes v Wylie

Answer 23

Ratio: A battery must be an act, not an omission.

Question 24

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association

Answer 24

Ratio: For the purposes of battery, intention includes subjective recklessness.

Question 25

Livingstone v MoD

Answer 25

Ratio: Doctrine of transferred malice applies to battery.

Question 26

F v West Berkshire HA

Answer 26

Ratio: Application of force must go beyond the bounds of generally acceptable everyday conduct.

Question 27

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 27

Ratio: Assault = an act of the defendant which directly and intentionally causes the claimant to apprehend an immediate battery or physical contact.

Question 28

R v Coker

Answer 28

Ratio: A conditional threat can be an assault.

Question 29

R v Governor of Brockill Prison

Answer 29

Ratio: For the purposes of false imprisonment, there must be an intention to restrain.

Question 30

Herd v Weardale Steel

Answer 30

Ratio: Restriction must be complete for it to constitute false imprisonment.

Facts: Claimant was a miner who wanted to leave before the end of his shift but was not allowed because the lift was not available.

Question 31

Chatterton v Gerson

Answer 31

Ratio: To consent to battery you must know basic nature and purpose of procedure.

Question 32

R v Williams

Answer 32

Ratio: Sometimes knowledge of a procedure can be insufficient to give consent to battery.

Facts: A singing teacher had sex with a pupil, telling her it would improve her singing. Student consented without understanding what sex was.

Question 33

Appleton v Garrett

Answer 33

Ratio: Sometimes knowledge of a procedure can be insufficient to give consent to battery.

Facts: A dentist was carrying out unnecessary dental treatment for financial gain - this was not consented to.

Contrast: R v Richardson - patients had consented to treatment by unregistered dentist as nature and purpose of treatment was the same.

Question 34

R v Tabassum

Answer 34

Ratio: Sometimes knowledge of a procedure can be insufficient to give consent to battery.

Facts: Man pretended to be a doctor and carried out breast examinations. No consent was fine as the purpose of the examination was not understood by patients.

Question 35

Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins)

Answer 35

Ratio: Necessity can be a defence to battery.

Facts: Necessary to kill one twin to avoid death of the other.

Question 36

Lane v Holloway

Answer 36

Ratio: Self-defence is available as a defence to trespass to the person. But it must be reasonable and what is reasonable varies in each case.

Question 37

Cockroft v Smith

Answer 37

Ratio: If claiming self-defence, the method must be proportionate.

Facts: Biting off someone’s finger who tries to gauge your eye out = proportionate.

Question 38

Janvier v Sweeney

Answer 38

Ratio: Example of something calculated to cause harm under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton.

Facts: Claimant suffered psychiatric damage after she was told she was suspected of being a spy. Successful claim.