False imprisonment. (tpttp) Flashcards
(9 cards)
definition of false imprisonment.
the defendant voluntarily does a postive act intending (or being subjectively reckless as so) unlawfully cause the claimants freedom of movement from a particular place to be completly constrained
established collins v wilcocks 1984.
what case established the defintion of false imprisonment.
collins v wilcocks 1984.
common features of falsw imprisonment.
defendant must act voluntarily
intend to do act that completley conttrains claimants freedom of movement to of from a particular place.
or be subjectivly reckless as to whether the act happened to completly contrtain movement from one place to another.
postivie act or be under a duty to act but then failed to act innes v wylie 1844.
d’s motive for imprisonment.
notive is irrelevant unlawful motive is not nesessary r v governor of brockhill prison ex parte evans 2001.
there is differnece between a intentional subjectivly reckless act and careless negligence when it comes to false imprisonment. careless negligence is not enough to bconsiddred false imprisonment.
how much does the claimants freedom of movement need to be constrained
totally, completely or totally conttrained established in bird and jones 1845
this can be a physical barrier like a locked door with no other reasonable way out no other way of escape that may not cause injury or harm.;
can be a conseptual operating c’s mind to constrain c in a particular placeactually conttrained now rather than just potentially conttrained in the future. r v bournewood mental health trust ex parte 1999.
escape?
elements of false imprisonment may not be met if claimant freedom of movement has not been completly constrained. eg there is other alternative reasonable ways that claimant could escape without risk of injury then defendant not liable.
what defence is unable in the tort of false imprisonment.
not able to raise the defense of contributory negligence by saying claimants damages shoudl be reduced because claimant failed to attempt to escape
cws v prichard 2009.
does claimant need to know of constraint.
no claimant does not need to know of constraint could be alseep or drunk etc. established Meering v grahame white aviation 1920. can be improsoned without knowing it.
however lack of awareness may affect damages nomonational damages will be awarded if claimant did not know of the imprisonment. murry v minstry of defence.
eg micheal barrymoore.
nomonational damages where there is a technical trespasss to the perosn eg where lawful procedures were not followed but if they were the outcome would be the same for the claimant.
can claimant consent to a reaonable condition for release.
yes
defendant is able to impose a reasonable condition for claimants later release then d may not be liable for false imprisonment.
Robinson v balmain ferry ltd 1910.( beach turnstile)
herd v weardale steel coke and coal co limited 1915. would not send the lift down till shift had finished.
lord viscount hardane example of getting on a train.
