tresspass to person (assualt, battery and false imprisonment)

Question 1

battery - element of intention

Answer 1

answer: williams v humphrey

as seen in case of Williams v Humphrey, Humphrey didn’t intend to cause Williams any injury it was just playful but courts held that the defendant only needs to intend to apply the force, not the consequences of that force.

Question 2

medical treatment in consent in battery

Answer 2

answer: Montgomery v Lanarkshire

• consent is critical: medical treatment can be considered battery if it’s perfomed without the patients valid consent.
• This area is complex, and recent cases like Montgomery v Lanarkshire emohasize the importance of providing sufficient information for patients to make informed decisions regarding treatment.

Question 3

direct application element of battery. which case highlights how force does not need to be forceful or hostile:

Answer 3

answer: F v West Berks 1990

Question 4

unlawfulness element in battery

Answer 4

F v west berks:
dealt with a social worker touching a mentally disabled woman in a way she found offensive. Whilst the touch itself may not have been considered a major application of force, even minor unwanted contact can be a trespass to the person, especially if it’s offensive or violates the individuals bodily integrity.)

Question 5

landmark case on assault

Answer 5

-Collins v Wilcock
-This landmark case established that for assault, the defendant must have acted intentionally (or with subjective recklessness) in a way that caused the plaintiff to have a reasonable apprehension of immediate, unlawful battery.

Question 6

irrelevance of D’s full intention in assault

Answer 6

like in Blake v Bernard, pointing an unloaded gun or raising a fist in a threatening manner can be assault, even if the defendant doesn’t necessarily intend to hit the claimant.

Question 7

element of reasonable apprehension in assault- objectiveness test

Answer 7

-This is highlighted in cases like stephens v myers and thomas v num

Question 8

element of immininent and immediete threat in assault

Answer 8

-As highlighted in Mbasogo v Logo Ltd & Ors, a threat of future violence wouldn’t necessarily constitute assault because the apprehension wouldn’t be immediate.

Question 9

context in imminenet threat: words and gestures

Answer 9

• Words alone, especially if not accompanied by threatening gestures or actions, generally wouldn’t be enough to create a reasonable apprehension of immediate battery.
• The case of Turberville v Savage (1669) illustrates this point. In this case, simply saying “I would not take such language” wasn’t considered assault because it didn’t create an immediate threat.

Question 10

no need to be intentional. as long as you acted recklesslessly in false impriosnment

Answer 10

• The case of Iqbal v Prison Officer’s Association (2010) highlights this. In this case, prison officers recklessly failed to release a prisoner on time, even though they were legally obligated to do so.
• This act, while not intentionally designed to imprison the individual for longer, still constituted false imprisonment due to their subjective recklessness regarding the restraint.

Question 11

‘direct’ restraint of false imprisonment

Answer 11

● False imprisonment requires a direct restraint on the plaintiff’s freedom of movement.
● This restraint must be a result of a positive action by the defendant, not just an omission. The case of Iqbal v Prison Officer’s Association reinforces this principle.

Question 12

key act and section in false imprisonment

Answer 12

● The right to liberty is protected under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
● The case of HL v UK [2004] highlights this. Here, the UK was found to be in violation of Article 5 for holding a mentally disabled person in a secure hospital without proper justification.
● This case emphasizes the importance of false imprisonment principles in upholding the right to liberty.

Question 13

false imprisonment doesnt need to be a total restraint of movement

Answer 13

Not Necessarily “Total” Restraint (Bird v Jones [1845])
The case of Bird v Jones (1845) is a crucial precedent. It established that false imprisonment doesn’t require a total restraint of movement. As long as there’s an unlawful restriction that prevents a reasonable escape, it can still be considered false imprisonment.- to the reasonable person

Question 14

Mental Capacity Act & Safeguarding frameworks (capacity to consent to restrictions).

Answer 14

• The Mental Capacity Act and Safeguarding frameworks play a role in determining when someone lacks the capacity to consent to restrictions.
• In such cases, even if they seem unaware of the restraint, it might still be considered unlawful depending on the context and the justification for the restriction.