Trespass to the person

Question 1

Trespass elements of torts

Answer 1

• committed intentionally
• direct and immediate interference with C
• actionable per se

Question 2

(1) Battery

Answer 2

Collins v Wilcock - LJ Goff - actual infliction of unlawful force of another person

Question 3

Intentional

Answer 3

battery is committed intentionally

Question 4

Voluntary

Answer 4

For D’s action to be intentional , they must be voluntary

Question 5

Object of intention

Answer 5

C only has to demonstrate D intended to make contact - sufficient for D to simply make contact

• Wilson v Pringle - C and D were 13 y/o boys - D acting in horseplay pulled on C bag causing him to suffer injury
  COA held: it is the act and not the injury which must be intentional - intention to injure is not essential
• Williams v Humphrey - D pushed C into pool with intent to cause splash but he suffered injury - his intent did not matter because he intended to make contact

Question 6

Is recklessness sufficient?

Answer 6

R v Venna - D kicked out his legs with the intent to avoid arrest but injured the officer in doing so - this did not matter because he was reckless

Bici v Ministry - subjective recklessness can suffice - Soldier shot at car but hadn’t intended to to shoot C - he had been reckless that was held to be sufficient for for the requirement of battery

Question 7

Transferred malice

Answer 7

Bici v Ministry- I intended to hit A but hit B instead - intention transferred from A to B

Question 8

Intent by omission

Answer 8

Fagan v Commissioner - D’s act in mounting the car on polices man foot was unitentional - when he failed to remove the car from his foot was when his intention was formed

Question 9

Negligent Trespass

Answer 9

Fowler v Lanning -

Letting v Cooper

Question 10

Direct

Answer 10

D must intend to make physical contact and it must be direct - Reynolds

• Scott v shepherd - Courts took generous interpretation of requirement - D lit firework and threw it in marketplace stalls the person kept throwing it around it landed and exploded near C - held to be direct interference with C bodily integrity even though several people through it

DPP v K - putting acid in the hand dryer so that it injured the next person was held to amount to battery

Remoteness - D will liable for all consequences even if unforeseeable

Question 11

Force/contact with C’s body

Answer 11

• courts interpreted it as merely requiring any physical contact with C
• any contact with the body (or clothing) is sufficient to amount to battery
• Cole v Turner - ‘ the lease touching of another in anger is a battery’ any physical touch will do
• Kaye - taking a photo of someone is not a battery

Question 12

Actionable per se

Answer 12

Re F (mental patient, Sterilisation) - do not have to cause C any injury, indeed a battery could actually improve C’s health

Question 13

Unlawful force - no requirement for hostility

Answer 13

Collins - LJ Goff - intention need not be hostile but there would be a general exception embracing all physical contact which is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life’

Wilson v Pringle - COA disagreed and maintained that hostility is required - LJ Johnson

Re F - Goff favored his interoperation - hostility is not required

battery is not committed when ordinary physical contact takes place

Question 14

Assault

Answer 14

Collins - LJ Goff - act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on. his person

• also must be intentional, immediate, and actionable per se
• Stephen v Myers - D advance to hit C but was stooped by another - it was assault because chairman expected to be hit but no battery because D was prevented from doing so
• reckless is not sufficient

Question 15

Intention

Answer 15

D must intend to commit battery

• recklessness not sufficient for the mental element of assault and the doctrine of transferred malice does not apply - Bici

Question 16

Act/conduct

Answer 16

Mbasogo v Logo - simply preparing for act was not sufficient - D planned and even made preparations for it

Hepburn v CC - standing there was not sufficient - conduct must cause claimant to apprehend a battery, they have to have the capacity to carry out assault - must relate to immediate harm

Question 17

Are words sufficient?

Answer 17

Meade v belt - words alone or not sufficient it has to be accompanied by an act or conduct

R v Ireland - D made silent phone calls that was sufficient to be an assault in criminal law

Question 18

Reasonable Apprehension

Answer 18

apprehending - thinking or expecting a battery is going to occur - D does not have to be fearful, scared or suffer any distress
- C just needs to expect harm

Question 19

Capacity to carry out assault

Answer 19

Mbasogo - apprehension must be reasonable - it won’t be reasonable if D has no means of carrying out the threat

R v Ireland - C may not have known that D had capacity to commit violence but feared the prospect

Question 20

Words can negate assault

Answer 20

D may utters words that negate the threat of force, making it unreasonable to expect immediate battery

Tuberville v Savage - D grabbed sword and said ‘were it not for assize time I would not have that language’ - it was not reasonable to expect D to carry out threat - wording negated the threat

Question 21

Conditional threats

Answer 21

Do not necessarily negate assault

• ex. your money or your life
• Read v Coker - ‘leave or I’ll break your neck’ - got employees to gang up around the customer saying leave or I’ll break his neck - this did not negate the assault

Question 22

Direct and immediate

Answer 22

C must expect immediate assault

Thomas v NUM - during strike they were picketing outside mine, non-striking miners crossed and picketing miners were shouting things but being held back by police.
- brought claim against union but claim failed because the lack of directness and immediacy - striking miners were being held back by police - there was no threat of immediate violence there were barriers between them

Question 23

False Imprisonment

Answer 23

Colins - Ld Goff - unlawful imposition of constraint upon another freedom of movement from a particular place

R(lumba) v SoS for home department - all C has to prove that he was directly or intentionally imprisoned by D

Question 24

Intentional direct act

Answer 24

Requires intention to perform the act and deprive C if his liberty

• Iqbal -

Question 25

Recklessness may suffice

Answer 25

Cannot be committed negligently but recklessness may suffice
Iqbal -

Question 26

A positive act

Answer 26

D is not liable if all they did was abstain from providing C with means of escaping constraint

• Herd v Weardale - C was a miner and descended down mine for the purpose of working for D, normally is entitled to be raised to top at end of his shift - he felt unsafe and requested to be raised to the surface but employee refused to permit use of lift until 1:30 - C bough claim for false imprisonment
• claim failed because he was only intended to go up the lift at the end of his shift

Question 27

Exceptions to the rule requiring a postivie act

Answer 27

Iqbal - there has to be a positive act committed by D
- D miscalculated the release date but made it on the basis of the calculation of the law as it stood - but they were based on law that was overruled. Governor making error was irrelevant - she could claim for false imprisonment

• where prison detention commits so called ‘public error’ in detaining a prisoner beyond which is lawful - false imprisoment will be established
• Prison v Evans - D had duty to release at that date and C had right to be released - D miscalculated release date based on line of cases that were overturned

Question 28

Act must be direct cause of imprisonment

Answer 28

Merely providing occasion for restraint is enough - Davidson v CC - store detective mistakenly suspected C of theft and so informed the police which confined C. - false imprisonment claim failed as all store detective done was create opportunity for imprisonment

Iqbal - governor was entitled to keep prisoners in their call all day if he wanted to - claim bought against union but failed on part to falsely in prison - it was not direct cause the direct cause was the governors decision

Question 29

Constraining of C’s freedom of movement

Answer 29

constraint need not be physical and is not necessary for C to be physically touched - (Alleyne)

restraint must be total - Bird v Jones - Bridge had been closed off by D so that a boat race could be watched for a fee - the only way to cross was another bridge - claim failed because freedom was not fully constricted he had other means of getting to his destination it was just a longer route

Herd - reasonable condition on the exit from the mine was to make him wait to the end of shift

Question 30

Awareness of constraint

Answer 30

No need for C to be aware of constraint

Hearing v Boyle - C was mother of schoolboy went to pick up son for holiday but head master would not let him leave because she did not pay school fees - claim was not successful because boy was unaware of constraint

Meering - LJ atkin - a person could be imprisoned without his knowing it - said it was unnecessary to go show the man knew he was imprisoned
- Lord Griffiths in Murray favoured this approach

Lumba - an action lies even if victim does not know that he was imprisoned

Question 31

Does not matter that C would have been constrained anyway

Answer 31

Lumba - C was detained pending deportation - the detention was unlawful but C would have been detained anyway - False imprisonment was still committed - it was not enough for D to say that C would have been constrained anyway

Ld dyson

Question 32

Nominal damages

Answer 32

If C is unaware of restraint, or would have been detained anyway, then only nominal damages will be awarded