trespass against the person

• What are the three tresspass torts against the person?

  -battery

  -assault

  -false imprisonment
• What are the common elements of trespass against the person?

  -intentional (must be voluntary, negligence will NOT suffice)

  -direct

  -actionable per se
• Definition of battery


  The intentional and direct application of unlawful force to another person
• Can conduct for battery be subjective recklessness?


  Usually voluntary but could be -> Gibbon v Pepper (1965), had no intention
• Does the defendant have the intend the consequences that follow?

  No, only must intend the application of force -> Williams v Humphrey [1975] and Nash v Sheen [1986]
• Defendant may acquire intention by failing to discontinue an accidental interference

  Fagan v MPC [1969]
• Defences to all forms of trespass

  -consent

  -necessity

  -self-defence
• definition of assault


  an intentional act which directly causes the claimant to reasonably apprehend the imminent application of unlawful force
• Objective test of 'reasonable apprehension':

  -Stephen v Myers [1840]

  -Thomas v NUM [1985]
• What does imminent mean?

  Immediate -> Mbasogo v Logo Ltd & Ors

  -therefore must be in close proximity -> Thomas v NUM
• Definition of unlawful imprisonment


  Intentional and direct imposition of unlawful constraint on a person's freedom of movement from a particular place
• Does the defendant need to intend 'unlawful' restriction of movement?

  No

  -Re Evan's

  -P & Ors v Cheshire West & Ors
• Can restraint on movement be a result of an omission?

  No, must be a positive act

  -Iqbal v Prison Officer's Association [2010]
• What human rights does false imprisonment affect?

  -Art 5 (HL v UK [2004])
• constraint on freedom of movement requirements

  -must be total -> Bird v Jones [1845]

  -must be no reasonable means of escape -> Robinson v Balmain Ferry [1910]

  -DOES NOT NEED TO BE PHYSICAL -> Harnett v Bond [1925]
• Who has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the detention was lawful?

  Defendant

  -Re Lumba [2011]
• Does the claimant need to be aware that their freedom is restrained?

  No

  -Mental Capacity Act
• self-defence must be proportionate to the threat

  • Cockroft v Smith [1705]
• what did Goff LJ say in F v West Berkshire?

  'every person's body is involitile'
• Scott v Shepherd

  • when d causes mischief, he is responsible for any continuation of his initial act
• Livingstone v MOD

  • it is possible for a claim in battery to be based on facts where c was not the intended target
• Chatterson v Gerson

  • when consent is given for a medical treatment, there cannot be a battery BUT this was overruled in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board where it was held patients should be made aware of risks and alternatives
• Williams v Humphrey

  • d pushed c into a pool as a joke, found liable despite not intending to cause harm
• Wilson v Pringle

  • d jumped onto c, held that battery requires the application of force to be intentional and hostile, HOWEVER this has been rejected in Re F where Lord Goff's view was reiterated
• what is Lord Goff's view?

  • Collins v Wilcock, physical contact will only amount to battery when it is not 'generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life'
• Nash v Sheen

  • d found liable for battery when toning c's hair without consent, resulting in a rash
• Dodwell v Burford

  • horse struck by d, c was thrown off, held to be battery due to direct contact
• Haystead v DPP

  • d punched c, causing her to drop her baby, held to be reckless rather than intentional battery
• F v West Berkshire Health Authority

  • when someone does not have the capacity to consent, it can be gained via a declaration of legality if it is in the best interest of the patient
• DPP v K

  • there can still be a battery, even if there is a delay between d's actions and the force applied to v
• Gibbons v Pepper

  • if A pushed B into C, he is responsible for the battery of B and C
• Blake v Barnard

  • d can still be liable for assault, even if he did not intend to carry out the threat
• Stephen v Myers, affirmed in, Thomas v NUM

  • assault requires the objective test of reasonable apprehension
  • e.g it doesn't matter if c is a particularly timid person as it is judged based on the reasonable person
• Thomas v NUM

  • proximity is relevant in relation to the imminence element of assault
• traditionally words could not constitute an assault (R v Meade and Belt) HOWEVER this was overruled in R v Ireland
• R (Jalloh) v SOS for the Home Department

  • reinforced Harnett v Bond
  • c was placed under unlawful curfew by law, held that although this wasn't a physical constraint, it was will sufficient
• P & Ors v Cheshire West and others

  • d does not need to intend the restriction of movement to be unlawful
  • reinforced in Re Evans
• confirmed by obiter in Murray v MOD

  • c does not need to be aware that their freedom of movement is constrained HOWEVER will only receive nominal damages
• Austin v MPC

  • false imprisonment cannot succeed if there is a lawful justification or excuse
  • held to not be false imprisonment as the police blocked the road in 'good faith'
• Pile v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

  • c was so intoxicated that she couldn't make an informed choice, so the police made it for her (implied consent)