TRESPASS TO THE PERSON

Colins v Wilcock- BATTERY

• LJ Goff: force must exceed ‘physical contact generally acceptable in daily life’.

• Intentional and direct application of direct force

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association

• subjective recklessness’ sufficient to satisfy the requirement of intention for the tort of battery.

• kept in cell during prison officer strikes- didn’t let him out - not enough staff

• held-no actionable tort of false imprisonment

Home Office v Wainwright

• battery- no requirement or limitation to how severe the touching must be

Wilson v Pringle; Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilization)

• no element of hostility or anger rquired- wanted to sterilise C- could not handle pregnancy

• amounts to battery if no court consent

Transferred Intent- Livingstone v Ministry of Defence;

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969]

• transferred intent- when intent of force can go onto the third party

• intention can also arise after the action

When Direct and Immediate amounts when Prior Duty to Act

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]

• withdrawal or treatment- omission to act- only liability if a prior duty to act

Collins v Willcock- ASSAULT

• Lord Goff: ‘an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force’

Stephens v Myers

• walked with clenched fist, but third party intervened

• not in position of hitting

• intending infliction was reasonable apprehension

R v Ireland (1998):

• silence can amount to assualt- can occur with neither threatening voice or threatening gesture

• Liability depends on if C reasonably believed verbal threat could be carried out in the sufficiently near future

Tuberville v Savage (1669)

• a verbally negated threat is not sufficient for an assault.

• no actionable assault if D has a lawful justification or excuse for her actions.

• held- wasn’t an assault

Collins v Wilcock- FALSE IMPRSONMENT

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

Bird v Jones

• must be a complete restriction of C’s freedom of movement

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department

• imprisonment- made to stay in a particular place by another person.

• physical barriers, such as locks and bars, physical people, such as guards - prevent leaving

Walker v The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis

• does not generally matter how long this restriction lasts.

ex p Evans (No 2) [2001]

• miscalculated release date of prison-became enough to amount to false imprisonment- didn’t have lawful justification

• even if did not intend to unlawfully imprison

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Wilkinson v Downtown)

• D- told husband had been a terrible accident and legs were broken, bleeding, and need to seem him immediately

• became shocked and distressed by the news- suffered physical and psychiatric shock- was a sick joke

• Justice Wright : ‘where a defendant … wilfully does an act calculated to cause physical harm … infringe her right to personal safety there is no justification

Rhodes v OPO [2015]

three elements:

• conduct element: ‘words or conduct directed to C- no justification or reasonable excuse- requires clear legitimate justification and clear lack of intent.

• mental element

• consequence element.

DEFENCES

CONSENT-withhold consent even if treatment in their best interests, Re Mb

NECESSITY

• Re A (Conjoined Twins) [2001]: necessity- balance of ‘best interests’ decisions between two people

SELF-DEFENCE

Ashley v Chief Constable of West Sussex Police [2008]

• mistaken belief must be reasonable- defence has to be about proportionality of response- not to escalate things