False imprisonment

Question 1

What is false imprisonment

Answer 1

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

Question 2

What are the two elements that must be proved

Answer 2

it must be proved that there was that the C was imprisoned; and that the imprisonment was not lawful

Question 3

What are the ingredients of false imprisonment

Answer 3

restraint on freedom of movement; act not omission; intentional; complete restraint; and C must have no knowledge of restraint

Question 4

What is restrain on freedom of movement

Answer 4

Refers to any actions which restrict the claimant’s freedom of movement in every direction.

Question 5

What are the two types of restraint

Answer 5

• Physical restraint e.g. tied/locked up. They will be obvious.
• Conceptual restraint e.g. threats such as ‘I’ll shoot the first person who comes out of the room’, you have been constrained by a threat which is a conceptual restraint on freedom of movement.

Question 6

How much freedom of movement may C have before he is constricted

Answer 6

Freedom can be restricted by still afford for certain amounts of freedom and it can be said that you have been imprsioned e.g. if a wall was built around Notts probably enough

Question 7

How long must you be imprisoned for

Answer 7

provided you are restricted, there is no lower limit to how long this restriction must last

Question 8

In which case wa restriction for 6-10 S enough

Answer 8

Walker v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis,C was pinned by a police officer against a door way for a matter of 6-10 seconds. The court held that there is no bar to a claim of false imprisonment. Provided you are restraint. Even if the restraint is brief this only matters for damages not for liability.

Question 9

Can an omission amount to false imprisonment

Answer 9

A restriction will usually involve a positive act, trespass is concerned with intentional, immediate and direct actions. An omission or refusal to release the C from confinement will not amount to false imprisonment, unless the C has a legal right to be released, then the D will be under a positive obligation to release the C.

Question 10

In which case was a refusal to release from cell during a strike not held to be false imprisonment

Answer 10

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association, held that the C, who was confined to his cell as a result of a prison officer’s strike, could not sue for false imprisonment Their omission to act- in refusing to let him out of his cell- did not entail liability. The C was legally detained and the officers were under no duty to the prisoner to release him (the duty was to their employer). Neuberger MR did suggest, however, that a deliberate and dishonest refusal to unlock their cells might give risk to a claim for misfeasance in a public office.

Question 11

case which shows you can be false imprisoned by a third party

Answer 11

Barkhuysen v Hamilton, neighbour dispute over rights of access to land. Eventually the situation is that where Hamilton calls the police saying the C has interfered with her pigs. This is a false allegation. The police arrest C entirely based on the false statement made by D. C brings a claim in false imprisonment. No claim against the police as it was not unlawful- it was not false. Brings a claim against Hamilton- could it be said she imprisoned even though she did not apply the restraint. If your act directly leads to the restraint this will be enough.

Question 12

What intention is needed

Answer 12

• No need to intend false imprisonment, just need to intend to imprison

Question 13

Which case held that motive was irrelevant regarding intention to falsey imprison

Answer 13

R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No.2), all the employees in a prison officer/ governor community misinterpret a statue to determine the length of time they can detain people. So instead after 2 ½ years, they release C after 3 years. A judicial review action is brought against the prison governors. After the error in calculation of sentence, a number sue for false imprisonment. The detention is unlawful; the statue did not authorise this. The detention is the result of an act, tried to argue an omission to release- rejected. Sufficient restraint to be false imprisonment. D accepted they had imprisoned longer, but argued they did not intend to unlawfully imprisonment. So although they were wrong they did not intend.
HoL said only have to intend the imprisonment, you don’t have to intend it to be false imprisonment.

Question 14

Will recklessness amount to false imprisonment

Answer 14

recklessness is sufficient proving that you realise that the likely consequence of your act is that someone will be restrained but carry on regardless.

Question 15

What type of restrain is needed

Answer 15

a complete restraint

Question 16

Case where it was held there had not been a complete restraint on movement (pier)

Answer 16

Bird v Jones, P had insisted on passing along the public footway on Hammersmith Bridge in London, which the D’s had partially enclosed without due permission. P had climbed over a fence erected by D to close off the footway on one side of the bridge, but he was prevented from moving along the footway by the D. He was told that he might go back and use the footpath on the other side of the bridge, but the P would not do so.
The court held that D was not liable for false imprisonment. They had not imposed a complete restriction on the P’s freedom of movement.

Question 17

Case where there had not been a complete restraint on movement (ferry)

Answer 17

Robinson v Balmain New Ferry, : the P has contracted to enter the D’s wharf to catch a ferry boat to cross the river. For reasons of efficiency, the fee of one penny was paid on one side of the river, on entering and exiting the wharf. Having a 20-minute wait for the next boat, the P changed his mind and tried to exit the ward, as required by the notice at the turnstile, he had to pay one penny which he refused to do. The D refused to let him leave until the charge was paid. In an action for false imprisonment, the Privy Council held that the penny charge was a reasonable condition for leaving by a route different from the one stipulated in the contract:
‘There is no law requiring the D to make the exit from their premises gratuitous to people who come there upon a definite contract which involves their leaving the wharf by another way’

Question 18

Case where there had been a complete restraint on movement (baseball)

Answer 18

Talcott v National Exhibition Co, C was held in baseball stadium ticket office. Staff did not show him the alternative exits. Although barriers are actually insufficient to restrain the C, there will still be complete restraint if the C believes them to be sufficient and the D intends him to believe this. On the facts, although there was a potential ability to move still complete restraint as he had no way of knowing the direction he could move. Therefore, he is falsely imprisoned, there is sufficient complete restraint.

Question 19

Case where there had been complete restraint (truck)

Answer 19

Burton v Davies, C alleged she was falsely imprisoned In a truck which was driven fast. She could have jumped out since the doors could be opened but if she did so she would have been injured. She has been restraint as it would not be fair to expect her to injury herself to escape. It would not be reasonable to expect him to jump out of the car.

Question 20

Case which sets out he factors of whether there is reasonable means of escaping from the confinement

Answer 20

McFadzean v CFMEU, Union in Australia, picketed a camp of environment protestors lobbying against fires in Australian outback. Because of the picketers they are unable to get in or out. It would be possible to walk through the outback to the nearest town. But it would be a long walk and difficult without the correct footwear, maps and compasses. The question arsing for decision in the court is are the protestors completely restrained? If yes, the union has falsely imprisoned them. If not, they have not been falsely imprisoned.

Question 21

What are the factors for determining reasonable escape

Answer 21

threat or danger to the self; threat or danger to property (including the property of others); distance and time; and legality

Question 22

what must the courts consider in considering danger to self

Answer 22

physical capabilities; fears and the courage of the C

Question 23

What does McFarlane say about personal characteristics

Answer 23

treadmill for 2 hours example, while may not be unreasonable if young and fit would be it elderly, unfit or asthmatic. Also take into account speed of treadmill

Question 24

What does McFarlane say about fears and phobias

Answer 24

If a person were required to escape from a locked room by crawling through an air conditioning vent for two hours, it might not be unreasonable in some circumstances, but it could be if the person suffered from claustrophobia’ McFadzean

Question 25

Damages to property

Answer 25

it would not be reasonable if you have to put property in danger

Question 26

Distance and time

Answer 26

not reasonable if includes long distance/time. It depends on what the situation is e.g. swimming the distance would be shorter than the distance that would be acceptable if walking.

Question 27

Legality

Answer 27

not reasonable if would have to do something illegal e.g. steal a car, trespassed onto some other persons land.

Question 28

Does C need to have knowledge he has been restrained? Case indicates not (boarding school)

Answer 28

Herring v Boyle, at boarding school, parents did not pay the fees so school would not allow him to come home until parents paid. Held by court he did not know so he could not have been falsely imprisoned

Question 29

Case where it was held D need not have knowledge of imprsionment

Answer 29

Meering v Grahame-White Aviation per Atkin LJ, The CoA held that the tort can be committed even where the C does not know that he or she is being detained. In this case, the P has been suspected of stealing from his employer the D, and so he has been asked to accompany two of his employer’s private police force to the company’s office. He had agreed to and waited as instructed in the waiting room. Unknown to the P, the two policemen remained nearby and had been instructed to not let him leave the waiting room until the metropolitan police arrived. He sued for false imprisonment. The court held that the tort had been committed as soon as the D was under the control of the D’s

Question 30

How will lack of knowledge be reflected

Answer 30

in nominal damages

Question 31

Will the court take into account conditions for escape

Answer 31

yes, when reasonable liability may not be found

Question 32

Case where it was held reasonable to change a change of mind fee

Answer 32

Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co

Question 33

Case were there was a reasonable condition (mine)

Answer 33

Herd v Weardale Steel, Coke and Coal Co. Limited, Herd goes on strike half way through shift down a mine, and demands to be let up to the surface immediately. The way lifts are scheduled he would have to wait until the shift change over. Argues false imprisonment. HoL disagree there was a reasonable means of escape which would be waiting until the shift finished. What is more, he had consented to stay in the mine until the shift had finished. There was also no positive act to imprison all that D did is refused to make an exception to the lift system. Is there a reasonable means of escape? Is the condition it imposed a reasonable means of escape? If the condition is in place prior to state of confinement, and objectively judge the compliance with the condition. Held it was reasonable to imply consent to staying underground until shift finishes.

Question 34

When will a condition be reasonable for release

Answer 34

The condition must be in place prior to the start of detention and the condition must be capable of objective verification.

Question 35

Example of when a condition would not eb reasonable

Answer 35

let you out when you have calmed down, not capable of objective judgement, or e.g. taxi drive locking doors and increasing price, not a condition in place prior to time of confinement Must be in place before confinement and must be able to be objectively judged.

Question 36

Case which held you can't imprison to recover debts

Answer 36

Sunbolf v Alford.

Question 37

Remedies for false imprisonment

Answer 37

injunction if still imrpisoned, or damages

Question 38

Case setting out amount for damages

Answer 38

£500 for first hour; decreasing per hour; £3000 for first day- Thompson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Question 39

Case that held D must pay damages for direct consequences

Answer 39

Hicks v Young

Question 40

Therefore can you claim damages for injury from escape

Answer 40

If you injure yourself escaping (reasonably), you can claim for this injury. But if you take an unreasonable means of escape this may break the chain of causation.