Trespass to the Person

Question 1

Tort Law

Answer 1

“A tort is an injury, other than breach of contract, which the law will redress with damages” - Fleming

“(Tort) law did not begin with a theory. It has never worked on out.’ - Oliver Wendell Holmes

A key distinction between TtoPerson and negligence is whether the tort was committed intentionally.

• in TtoPerson, it MUST be intentional.
• in Neg, it CAN be unintentional.

Question 2

Trespass to the Person

Answer 2

The first area of tort law we are concerned with.

There are FOUR torts which constitute trespass to the person. Apart from residuary trespass, ALL are:

• actionable PER SE i.e. no need to prove damage suffered.
• require a DIRECT ACT, omission won’t suffice.

The Torts are:

1. Battery
2. Assault
3. False Imprisonment
4. Residuary Trespass or “Rule in Wilkinson v Downton).

Question 3

BATTERY

Answer 3

Def: the DIRECT, INTENTIONAL and unlawful APPLICATION OF FORCE to another person.

1. DIRECT ACT (Reynolds v Clarke): hitting someone in the course of an act.
   - App of force can be continuous (Fagan v MPC).
   - Directedness is widely defined. Judged by the extent to which damage is foreseeable, must be no break in causation (Scott v Shepherd), (DPP v K).
   - Even hitting a horse the claimant is riding is sufficiently direct (Dodwell v Burdford).
2. INTENTIONAL: act MUST be intentional (Letang v Cooper).
   - Negligence or omission will not suffice (Innes v Wylie).
   - Only intent for the contact is necessary, no need for intent to harm as a result of said contact (Wilson v Pringle).
   - Intention to contact one individual can constitute intent to contact the individual actually contacted. Doc. of Transferred Malice (Livingstone v MoD).
3. APPLICATION OF FORCE
   - Slightest contact can suffice (Cole v Turner).
   - No need for victim to actually be injured, there can still be a valid application of force.
   - – EGs: Spitting on someone (R v Cotesworth), cutting (Forde v Skinner) or dyeing hair (Nash v Sheen).
4. HOSTILITY and CONSENT
   HOSTILITY: the defendant need not act with malice, merely an awareness that the claimant wouldn’t consent to their actions (Wilson v Pringle).
   CONSENT: for valid consent, individual must have consented to both the nature and purpose of the act (Appleton v Garrett).
   - can be express or implied.
   — express can be given orally or in writing, implied given through behaviour.
   - Must know exactly what consenting to.
   - in law, cannot consent to harm equal or worse than s.47 OAPA 1861 (ABH).
5. UNLAWFUL: unlawful if no defences apply. See defences card.

Question 4

ASSAULT

Answer 4

Def: “An act which INTENTIONALLY and DIRECTLY causes another person to APPREHEND the INFLICTION OF IMMEDIATE unlawful FORCE.” (Collins v Wilcock)

1. DIRECT ACT: The act must have been made directly at the victim.
2. INTENTIONAL: As per Battery. Negligence will not suffice.
3. APPREHENSION OF IMMEDIATE FORCE
   - CAUSES APPREHENSION
   - – Words (R V Wilson) or silence (R v Ireland) can suffice.
   - – Words may also negate an assault (Tuberville v Savage). Contrast with (Read v Coker).
   - – Apprehension must be reasonable, is judged objectively.
   - IMMEDIATE
   - – Meaning of immediate must be reasonable, judged objectively. BUT it can be interpreted widely. See (R v Ireland) or (Stephens v Myers).

Question 5

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Answer 5

Def: the DIRECT, INTENTIONAL and unlawful RESTRICTION of another person’s liberty.

1. DIRECT ACT (Sayers v Harlow UDC)
   - The act must have been made.
2. INTENTIONAL (Fagan v MPC)
   - They need only intend to imprison or restrain someone, no requirement for it to be unlawful. (R v Governor of Brockhill Prison).
3. RESTRICTION
   - The restriction of a person’s liberty must be COMPLETE. Causing inconvenience will not suffice (Bird v Jones).
   - Complete restriction if there is no reasonable means of escape.
   - Victim doesn’t need to be aware that they are imprisoned (Murray v MoD).
   - No requirement for force to be present, words alone can suffice (Davidson v CC of North Wales).
4. UNLAWFUL: if no defences apply.
   - May be lawful for:
   - – Breach of contract (Robinson v Balmain Ferry)
   - — Lawful Arrest, although can become unlawful if claimant not informed on grounds for arrest or not taken to police station ASAP.

Question 6

RESIDUARY TRESPASS (The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton)

Answer 6

Def: a deliberate act or statement intended to, and actually causing, a person harm (Wilkinson v Downton).

• the harm inflicted must be medically recognised (Wainwright v Home Office).
• EG: Claims that a person was being investigated for being a spy (Janvier v Sweeney).

Question 7

DEFENCES

Answer 7

SELF DEFENCE: The force used must be reasonable/proportionate (Lane v Holloway).
- can be used to protect property also (Bird v Holbrook).

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA i.e. consent: defence if claimant consented to their actions.

• can be express or implied (Collins v Wilcock).
• relevant particularly in Medical Situations and Sporting Events.

NECESSITY: D has a defence iff can show that:
- there was a situation of emergency/necessity AND
- the action taken was reasonable.
EX: unconscious patient unable to consent (Re F v West Berkshire), or one person may die as a result of the other if no operation (Re A (conjoined twins)).