assault battery and false imprisonemtn

Question 1

What is an assault

Answer 1

an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person

Question 2

What is battery

Answer 2

the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person

Question 3

What is false imprisonment?

Answer 3

the unlawful imposition of constraint on another’s freedom of movement from a particular place

Question 4

what are the 3 core characteristics for the trespass torts?

Answer 4

1) type of culpability: they are to be committed intentionally or recklessly
2) Type of harm- can recover for some types of har that can’t be recovered in negligence
3) proof of harm- they are actionable per se, that is, without proof of personal or financial loss

Question 5

What case under
‘type of culpability’
notes that
‘when the injury is not inflicted intentionally but negligently, I would say that the only cause of action is in negligence and not trespass’.

Answer 5

Letang v Cooper

Question 6

Under type of culpability

Iqbal v Prison Offciers Association considers the intentional committal

Answer 6

a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities.
HELD:
The mere failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and (b) that failure was not the direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.

Question 7

a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities.
HELD:
The mere failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and (b) that failure was not the direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.

Answer 7

Under type of culpability

Iqbal v Prison Offciers Association considers the intentional committal

Question 8

What are the 3 elements of battery?

Answer 8

1) intentional application of unlawful force
2) which is direct and immediate
3) For which there is no lawful excuse of justification

Question 9

what case is an example of intentional application of unlawful force (battery step 1) ?

Answer 9

Williams v Humphries

Question 10

Williams v Humphries is an example of intentional application of unlawful force (battery step 1)
discuss case

Answer 10

The defendant pushed the claimant into the swimming pool as a practical joke, unfortunately this caused the claimant to break his ankle.
Held: The defendant was liable.

Question 11

The defendant pushed the claimant into the swimming pool as a practical joke, unfortunately this caused the claimant to break his ankle.
Held: The defendant was liable.

Answer 11

Williams v Humphries is an example of intentional application of unlawful force (battery step 1)
discuss case

Question 12

which case demonstrates an intentional application of unlawful force
(intention application of unlawful force battery)

Answer 12

fagan

Question 13

fagan demonstrates an intentional application of unlawful force
(intention application of unlawful force battery)
discuss case

Answer 13

D accidentally drove over officers foot but then failed to move it after being made aware
Criminal battery can also show tort of battery

Question 14

D accidentally drove over officers foot but then failed to move it after being made aware
Criminal battery can also show tort of battery

Answer 14

fagan demonstrates an intentional application of unlawful force
(intention application of unlawful force battery)
discuss case

Question 15

(intention application of unlawful force battery)

Which case demonstrates that horseplay is not a battery

Answer 15

Wiliiams v Pringle

Question 16

D pulled a bag off C’s shoulder and injured C

NO battery because action was horseplay

Answer 16

(intention application of unlawful force battery)

Wiliiams v Pringle demonstrates that horseplay is not a battery

Question 17

Which 2 cases concern

-which is direct and immediate?

Answer 17

• Scott v Sheppard

- DPP v K

Question 18

Scott v Sheppard 
DPP v K 
both consider what is meant by direct and immediate 
under battery 
discuss the first

Answer 18

Defendant throw a small firework into a market place was to be liable aftr it was thrown onwards by two stall holders before exploding and injuring a third

Question 19

Defendant throw a small firework into a market place was to be liable aftr it was thrown onwards by two stall holders before exploding and injuring a third

Answer 19

Scott v Sheppard 
DPP v K 
both consider what is meant by direct and immediate 
under battery 
discuss the first

Question 20

Scott v Sheppard 
DPP v K 
both consider what is meant by direct and immediate 
under battery 
discuss the second

Answer 20

A school child created a bobbly trap by filling a hand dryer with sulfuric acid, which burnt the next child to use it.
Held: The defendant was liable.

Question 21

A school child created a bobbly trap by filling a hand dryer with sulfuric acid, which burnt the next child to use it.
Held: The defendant was liable.

Answer 21

Scott v Sheppard 
DPP v K 
both consider what is meant by direct and immediate 
under battery 
discuss the second

Question 22

Which standard defences apply to the 3rd battery step

‘for which there was no lawful excuse or justification’

Answer 22

• voluntary assumption of risk and

- illegality

Question 23

-voluntary assumption of risk and
-illegality are standard defences which apply to the 3rd battery step
‘for which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
this is most relevant in medical context. Which case demonstrates this and explain

Answer 23

Chatterson

the patient must be“informed in broad terms what the procedure involves”.

Question 24

Chatterson

the patient must be“informed in broad terms what the procedure involves”.

Answer 24

-voluntary assumption of risk and
-illegality are standard defences which apply to the 3rd battery step
‘for which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
this is most relevant in medical context. Which case demonstrates this and explain

Question 25

voluntary assumption of risk and -illegality are standard defences which apply to the 3rd battery step 'for which there was no lawful excuse or justification' this is most revelenat in a medical context. Which case established that an adult patient with no mental incapacity has an absolute right to choose whether to consent to medical treatment

Answer 25

Re T

Question 26

Under self defence under the last step of battery 'For which there was no lawful excuse or justification' Which case demonstrates the 2 part test for self defence. and what is the 2 part test?

Answer 26

Ashley v CC of Sussex Police 1) the claimant must have a reasonable belief that they are about to be attacked and 2) the force they use must be proportionate to the circumstances

Question 27

Ashley v CC of Sussex Police 1) the claimant must have a reasonable belief that they are about to be attacked and 2) the force they use must be proportionate to the circumstances

Answer 27

Under self defence under the last step of battery 'For which there was no lawful excuse or justification' Which case demonstrates the 2 part test for self defence. and what is the 2 part test?

Question 28

Under self defence under the last step of battery 'For which there was no lawful excuse or justification' What are the 3 cases under self defence?

Answer 28

Ashely v CC of Sussex Police Cockcroft v Smith Cross v Kirkby

Question 29

Under self defence under the last step of battery 'For which there was no lawful excuse or justification' the three cases under this are Ashely v CC of Sussex Police Cockcroft v Smith Cross v Kirkby discuss the second

Answer 29

Claimant had run towards the defendant with his finger pointsd towards D's eye. the defendant bit the claimants finger off held: disproportionate force so not valid self defence

Question 30

Claimant had run towards the defendant with his finger pointsd towards D's eye. the defendant bit the claimants finger off held: disproportionate force so not valid self defence

Answer 30

Under self defence under the last step of battery 'For which there was no lawful excuse or justification' the three cases under this are Ashely v CC of Sussex Police Cockcroft v Smith Lane discuss the second

Question 31

Under self defence under the last step of battery 'For which there was no lawful excuse or justification' the three cases under this are Ashely v CC of Sussex Police Cockcroft v Smith Lane discuss the third

Answer 31

claimant believing the defendant was going to hit him threw a punch at the defendants shoulder. The defendant then punched the claimant causing severe injury HELD punch was disproportionate and provocation not a defence The man who strikes a blow of such severity is liable in damages unless he can prove accident or self-defence’.

Question 32

claimant believing the defendant was going to hit him threw a punch at the defendants shoulder. The defendant then punched the claimant causing severe injury HELD punch was disproportionate and provocation not a defence The man who strikes a blow of such severity is liable in damages unless he can prove accident or self-defence’.

Answer 32

Under self defence under the last step of battery 'For which there was no lawful excuse or justification' the three cases under this are Ashely v CC of Sussex Police Cockcroft v Smith Lane discuss the third

Question 33

which case established that assault is “an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person”.

Answer 33

Collins v Wilcock

Question 34

what are the 4 elements of assault?

Answer 34

1) the defendant must intend or be reckless as to the claimants apprehending of the application of unlawful force 2) it must be reasonable for the claimant to apprehend immediate unlawful force being applied to them and 3) the threat must be of the apprehension of immediate and direct force 4) no lawful justification or excuse

Question 35

under the 2nd element of establishing an assault, what is the case which considers whether C has a reasonable fear ?

Answer 35

Stephens v myers

Question 36

Stephens v myers considerswhether C has a reasonable fear under the 2nd element of establishing an assault, discuss case

Answer 36

Defendant asked to leave parish council meeting. The defendant threatened the chair with violence and advanced toward the chair with a clenched fist before being intercepted. Held: Liable in assault.

Question 37

Defendant asked to leave parish council meeting. The defendant threatened the chair with violence and advanced toward the chair with a clenched fist before being intercepted. Held: Liable in assault.

Answer 37

Stephens v myers considerswhether C has a reasonable fear under the 2nd element of establishing an assault, discuss case

Question 38

Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, which cases considered this?

Answer 38

- Thomas v National Union of Miners - R v Ireland - Tuberville v Savage

Question 39

``` Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, the following cases considered this -Thomas v National Union of Miners -R v Ireland -Tuberville v Savage ``` discuss the first

Answer 39

During the miners’ strike a group of striking miners outside a mine shouted abuse and threats at miners being bussed in to work in the pit. One of the miners on the bus sought to sue the organising union in battery. Held: No assault.

Question 40

During the miners’ strike a group of striking miners outside a mine shouted abuse and threats at miners being bussed in to work in the pit. One of the miners on the bus sought to sue the organising union in battery. Held: No assault.

Answer 40

Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, the following cases considered this -Thomas v National Union of Miners

Question 41

``` Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, the following cases considered this -Thomas v National Union of Miners -R v Ireland -Tuberville v Savage ``` discuss the second

Answer 41

Facts: the defendant had been harassing women for some time, including by making silent phone calls to them. Held: The court held ‘a thing said is also a thing done’ and the defendant liable.

Question 42

Facts: the defendant had been harassing women for some time, including by making silent phone calls to them. Held: The court held ‘a thing said is also a thing done’ and the defendant liable.

Answer 42

``` Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, the following cases considered this -Thomas v National Union of Miners -R v Ireland -Tuberville v Savage ``` discuss the second

Question 43

``` Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, the following cases considered this -Thomas v National Union of Miners -R v Ireland -Tuberville v Savage ``` discuss the third

Answer 43

The defendant placed his hand on his sword and stated ‘if it were not assize time I would not take such language from you.’ Held: No assault

Question 44

The defendant placed his hand on his sword and stated ‘if it were not assize time I would not take such language from you.’ Held: No assault

Answer 44

``` Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, the following cases considered this -Thomas v National Union of Miners -R v Ireland -Tuberville v Savage ``` discuss the third

Question 45

How has Collins v Willcock described false imprionsment

Answer 45

unlawful imposition of constraint on another’s freedom of movement from a particular place’

Question 46

What are the 3 elements of establishing false imprisonemtn?

Answer 46

1) The defendant must intend the restriction of the claimant’s freedom of movement, 2) There must be a complete restriction of the claimant’s freedom of movement, and 3) It must be done without lawful authorisation.

Question 47

under false imprisonment which case demonstrates that it can be committed intentionally or recklessly?

Answer 47

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association

Question 48

under false imprisonment Iqbal v Prison Officers Association demonstrates that it can be committed intentionally or recklessl discuss case

Answer 48

a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities. HELD: The mere failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and (b) that failure was not the direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.

Question 49

a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities. HELD: The mere failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and (b) that failure was not the direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.

Answer 49

under false imprisonment Iqbal v Prison Officers Association demonstrates that it can be committed intentionally or recklessl discuss case

Question 50

which cases demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?

Answer 50

Walker | Robinson v Ferry

Question 51

Walker demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?discuss case

Answer 51

Claimant was unlawfully blocked by a policeman in a doorway for a few seconds. Held: Unlawful false imprisonment.

Question 52

Claimant was unlawfully blocked by a policeman in a doorway for a few seconds. Held: Unlawful false imprisonment.

Answer 52

Walker demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?discuss case

Question 53

Robinson v Ferry demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?discuss case

Answer 53

The claimant had paid a penny to enter a wharf in order to catch a ferry but then changed his mind. The defendants refused to let him leave without paying another penny. Held: not false imprisonment When R entered the ferry gate, he agreed to pay a penny on both entering and leaving the ferry.

Question 54

The claimant had paid a penny to enter a wharf in order to catch a ferry but then changed his mind. The defendants refused to let him leave without paying another penny. Held: not false imprisonment When R entered the ferry gate, he agreed to pay a penny on both entering and leaving the ferry.

Answer 54

Robinson v Ferry demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?discuss case

Question 55

Under the second requirement that there must be a complete restriction which case discusses whether lack of consciousness matters?

Answer 55

Meering

Question 56

Under the second requirement that there must be a complete restriction Meering discusseswhether lack of consciousness matters? discuss

Answer 56

a personperson could be imprisoned without his knowing it. I think a person can be imprisoned while he is asleep, while he is in a state of drunkenness, while he is unconscious, and while he is a lunatic …

Question 57

a personperson could be imprisoned without his knowing it. I think a person can be imprisoned while he is asleep, while he is in a state of drunkenness, while he is unconscious, and while he is a lunatic …

Answer 57

Under the second requirement that there must be a complete restriction Meering discusseswhether lack of consciousness matters? discuss

Question 58

What are the 2 statutes under the last step of without lawful authorisation or excuse for false imprisonment?

Answer 58

prison act 1952 and | PACE 1984

Question 59

what is the rule in wilkinson v downtown in regards to the inftention infliction of emotional or physical harm discuss the case

Answer 59

For a joke the defendant falsely told the claimant that her husband had been involved in an accident in which he had been seriously injured. Held: “He had ‘wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the female [claimant] – that is to say, infringe her right to personal safety, and thereby in fact caused physical harm to her. That proposition, without more appears to me to state a good cause of action, there being no justification alleged for the act’

Question 60

For a joke the defendant falsely told the claimant that her husband had been involved in an accident in which he had been seriously injured. Held: “He had ‘wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the female [claimant] – that is to say, infringe her right to personal safety, and thereby in fact caused physical harm to her. That proposition, without more appears to me to state a good cause of action, there being no justification alleged for the act’

Answer 60

what is the rule in wilkinson v downtown in regards to the inftention infliction of emotional or physical harm discuss the case

Question 61

The criteria for ;intentional infliction of emotional or phyriscla harm has 3 criteria what are they?

Answer 61

conduct element: D must use words or conduct directed to the claimant for which there is no justification ro reasonable excuse mental element: the words or conduct must be intended to cause the claimant physical harm or severe mental or emotional distress consequence element: the claimant must suffer physical harm or a recognised psychological injury as a consequence - Emotional distress is not sufficient. - It is not actionable per se.

Question 62

Two cases are discussed under the intentional infliction emotional or physical harm the first is Wilkinson v Downtwon what is the second?

Answer 62

Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53

Question 63

there are two cases discussed under the intentional infliction emotional or physical harm. The first is Wilkinson v Downtown and the second is Wainwright v Home Office discuss the second

Answer 63

mother and her son, had been subjected to strip searches by prison officers while visiting a family member in Leeds prison, which were not conducted according to the prison rules. They were distressed HELD: Held: No claim under the rule in Wilkinson v Downtown as (a) not sufficient intention or recklessness to cause harm by the prison officers, and (b) no recognised psychiatric harm caused

Question 64

mother and her son, had been subjected to strip searches by prison officers while visiting a family member in Leeds prison, which were not conducted according to the prison rules. They were distressed HELD: Held: No claim under the rule in Wilkinson v Downtown as (a) not sufficient intention or recklessness to cause harm by the prison officers, and (b) no recognised psychiatric harm caused

Answer 64

there are two cases discussed under the intentional infliction emotional or physical harm. The first is Wilkinson v Downtown and the second is Wainwright v Home Office discuss the second

Question 65

What is the purpose of the Protection from Harassment Act 1998?

Answer 65

It goes beyond the common law by giving protection to distress which is not a medically recognised psychiatric injury.

Question 66

What is the test under the Protection from harrassment act 1998?

Answer 66

would a reasonable person think the conduct amounted to harassment (dilberately broad)

Question 67

generally a single action will not be sufficient. What would count?

Answer 67

conduct on at least 2 occasions in relation to a single person

Question 68

what did the case of Law Society v Kordowski hold in relation to the Protection From Harrasssment Act 1998?

Answer 68

The defendant was the founder, operator and publisher of the “Solicitors from Hell” website. Members of the public were invited, in return for a fee, to “name and shame” solicitors. Held: Publication of information about a person on a website could amount to a course of conduct.

Question 69

The defendant was the founder, operator and publisher of the “Solicitors from Hell” website. Members of the public were invited, in return for a fee, to “name and shame” solicitors. Held: Publication of information about a person on a website could amount to a course of conduct.

Answer 69

what did the case of Law Society v Kordowski hold in relation to the Protection From Harrasssment Act 1998?

Question 70

which case discussed the ability for harassment at work to be included within the Protection from Harassment Act 1998?

Answer 70

Veakins v Kier Islington

Question 71

Veakins v Kier Islingtondiscussed the ability for harassment at work to be included within the Protection from Harassment Act 1998 discuss case

Answer 71

The claimant was victimised and bullied by the defendant, who was her manager at her place of work HELD: is doubtful whether the legislature had the workplace in mind when passing an Act that was principally directed at “stalking” and similar cases. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the language of the Act which excludes workplace harassment.

Question 72

The claimant was victimised and bullied by the defendant, who was her manager at her place of work HELD: is doubtful whether the legislature had the workplace in mind when passing an Act that was principally directed at “stalking” and similar cases. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the language of the Act which excludes workplace harassment.

Answer 72

Veakins v Kier Islingtondiscussed the ability for harassment at work to be included within the Protection from Harassment Act 1998 discuss case

Question 73

(intention application of unlawful force battery) Wiliiams v Pringle demonstrates that horseplay is not a battery

Answer 73

D pulled a bag off C's shoulder and injured C | NO battery because action was horseplay