Assault, battery and false imprisonment Flashcards
revision (18 cards)
false imprisonment (FI)
intentional and direct imposition of unlawful constraint on a person’s freedom of movement from a particular place.
FI intentional
Voluntariness or subjective recklessness as to the restraint on another’s freedom of movement. (Iqbal v Prison Officer’s Association [2010]).
No intention to unlawful restrict (Re Evans [2000]).
FI direct
Must be a positive action, NOT an omission (Iqbal v Prison Officer’s Association [2010]).
Potential or actual deprivation (R v Bournewood Community & Mental Health NHS Trust [1998].
HRA 1998- art 5: right to liberty.
FI constraint on freedom
Must be total- Bird v Jones [1845].
No reasonable means of escape- Heard v Weardale Steel [1915].
Need not be physical- Harnett v Bond [1925].
FI unlawful
Relates to fact of imprisonment not conditions of imprisonment.
Any reasoning?
FI Claimant’s knowledge and awareness
Claimant need not be aware.
Mental Capacity Act 2005- framework for decision making for those who lack capacity. Must be adhered to.
Esegbona v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2019]- trust did not follow the guidelines in MCA 2005 by failing to properly assess Mrs Esegbona’s capacity and ignoring her wishes to go home.
FI defences
consent.
necessity.
self-defence.
Assault (A)
intentional act or statement that directly causes another to reasonably apprehend an imminent battery.
A intention
intention or subjective recklessness to another’s reasonable apprehension of a battery. Collins v Wilcock [1984].
Irrelevant that D may not intend to carry out threat. Blake v Barnard [1840].
A reasonable apprehension
objective test of ‘reasonable apprehension’ Thomas v NUM [1985]- not necessary for the D to have immediate means to carry out the threat.
A imminent
Imminent= immediate (Mbasogo v Logo Ltd & Ors [2006].
A words or silence?
Can words/silence be intimidating- need a gesture too.
Read v Coker [1853]- threats were accompanied by a physical gesture that indicated an immediate intention to carry out the threat.
A defences
Consent
Necessity
Self-defence
Battery (B)
Intentional and direct application of unlawful force to another.
B Intentional
Can be subjective recklessness- Gibbon v Pepper (1695).
Must intend the application of force not necessarily the consequences- Wilson v Pringle [1986].
Failing to discontinue accidental inference- Fagan v Met Police [1969].
Medical treatment- importance of consent: Montgomery v Lanarkshire [2015].
B direct application
Need not be forceful or hostile- F v West Berks [1990].
Can use an object- DPP v K [1990].
Must be direct and glow without intervention from D’s actions- Dodwell v Burford [1669].
Short time gap may be fine- DPP v K [1990].
B unlawful
Context
Exception of everyday contact.
B defences
Consent
Necessity
Self-defence
