Tresspass to the person - FALSE IMPRISONMENT Flashcards
What is false imprisonment?
Collins v Wilcock 1984
‘the defendant voluntarily does a positive act, intending (or being subjectively reckless so as) unlawfully to cause the claimant’s freedom of movement from a particular place to be completely constrained’
D’s intentional (or subjectively reckless?) act which completely restricts C’s freedom of movement or to a particular place without lawful excuse
Features of False imprisonment - D’s motive
MOTIVE IS NOT RELEVANT / an unlawful motive not necessary: R. v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No.2) (2001)
There is a difference between:
> Intentional act/subjective recklessness [sufficient for false imprisonment]; and
> carelessness/negligence [not sufficient for false imprisonment]
Features of False Imprisonment - RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
C.’s freedom of movement must be:
> completely (or ‘totally’) constrained: Bird v Jones (1845) QB. This can be by:
A physical barrier, such as a locked door with no other reasonable means of escape [A reasonable means of escape is probably one which involves no unreasonable risk of injury to escape)
> A conceptual restraint, operating on C.’s mind to constrain C. in a particular place e.g.
> actually constrained now rather than potentially constrained in the future: R. v Bournewood Mental Health Trust (ex parte L.) (1999) HL
Escape?
If the elements of false imprisonment are not met, e.g. because C.’s freedom of movement was not completely constrained (e.g. there was a reasonable way for C. to escape, which involved no risk of injury), then D. will not be liable.
The defence of contributory negligence is not available in the torts of trespass to the person CWS v Pritchard (2009) CA. D. cannot argue that C.’s damages should be reduced because C. failed to (attempt to) escape.
Features of False imprisonment - DOES C NEED TO KNOW OF THE ESCAPE?
C. does not need to know that he/she is being imprisoned: Meering v Grahame-White Aviation (1920) per Atkin LJ:
‘… a person could be imprisoned without knowing it. I think a person could be imprisoned while he is asleep, while he is in a state of drunkenness, while he is unconscious, and while he is a lunatic.’
C’s lack of awareness will affect damages
If C. is unaware, nominal damages may be awarded: Murray v Ministry of Defence (1988) HL
Nominal damages may also be awarded where there is a technical trespass to the person claim, e.g. because lawful procedures were not followed, but if they had been followed, the outcome for the claimant would have been the same
Practically, nominal damages may leads to a significant costs disadvantage (e.g. if C. wins their claim, and is awarded damages of £1…)
C may have consented to a reasonable condition for released imposed by D
If D. imposes a reasonable condition for C.’s future release, then D. may not be liable for C.’s imprisonment: Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co. Ltd (1910):
Better rationalised as (implied) advance consent by C.? Herd v Weardale Steel, Coke and Coal Co. Limited (1915) HL – See the defence of consent
The acts/pure omissions debate is also relevant: See Iqbal v Prison Officers Association (2010) CA
Conditions for release
Herd v Weardale Steel, Coke and Coal Co. Limited (1915) HL: reasonable to imply consent to staying underground until shift finishes. Per Viscount Haldane LC:
‘If a man gets into an express train and the doors are locked pending its arrival at its destination, he is not entitled, merely because the train has been stopped by signal, to call for the doors to be opened to let him out. He has entered the train on the terms that he is to be conveyed to a certain station without the opportunity of getting out before that, and he must abide by the terms on which he has entered the train.’
