Trespass to the Persons

Types

• Assault

• Battery

• False imprisonment

• Rule in Wilkinson v Downton

• Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Assault defintion

Collins v Wilcock  

“[Assault is]…an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person.”  per Goff LJ.   

Objective standard - three requirements

1. Reasonable apprehension of harm - assault, 3

 An objective test (Stephens v Myers) - conduct was enough for the plaintiff to apprehend harm  

Innes v Wylie - must be a positive act.

R v St. George - an unloaded gun at the plaintiff (who was unaware) was found to be assault.

2. it must be intentional

D must intend to cause C to apprehend unlawful force.  

R v Venna - Subjective recklessness is sufficient

3. it must be immediate and direct (assault) - 3

Capable of being carried out immediately (Thomas v National Union), same principle with words (R v Ireland)

Words can also nullify an assault (Tuberville v Savage).

Battery defintion

Collins v Wilcock [1984]   

Battery's definition: “[T]he actual infliction of unlawful force on another person.” per Goff LJ.   

1. it must be intentional (battery)

D must intend to apply or inflict pain  

This applies even if a prank (Williams v Humphrey)

Transferred intent/malice  - 3

James v Campbell - transferred malice, d still deemed to have committed intentional battery.  

Gibbon v Pepper - if accidental not liable, However, if D pushes x and stumbles into y, d is said to have intended to harmed both.   

Fagan v Police - intent developed after action still intentional.

2. it must be direct (battery) - 2

Scott v Shepherd - busy market place case - sufficiently direct.

DPP v K - even with delay, still direct.

3. it must entail immediate force - 3

Battery

Potentially any form of bodily contact.  

Cole v Turner - “The least touching in anger” would be enough to constitute this. per Ld. Holt.

  

Wilson v Pringle  - horseplay did not qualify as immediate force.   

Re F “…a broader exception has been created to allow for the exigencies of everyday life…” per Ld. Goff

False imprisonment definition - 1,2,3(abc)

Collins v Wilcock - “The unlawful imposition of constraint on another person’s freedom of movement from a particular place.” per Goff LJ   

R v Governor -  tort of strict liability.  

Davidson v Chief Constable - d must be the instigator, promoter and inciter of the imprisonment.  

1. Complete restriction on C’s freedom of movement  - 3

R (Jalloh) v Home Secretary – does not matter if it was their home,  “many and various.” methods per Lady Hale.

Robinson v Balmain - the defendant can put reasonable restrictions on his premises.

Herd v Weardale - agreed to limitations on his freedom. "…. cannot be expected to stop a train in the middle of its journey..." 

 

  

 False imprisonment by omission  - 2

Iqbal v Prison Officers’ Association - no liability for omission, only when the defendant fails to free them.   

Meering v Grahame-White  per Atkin LJ: “…a person could be imprisoned without knowing it…”, complete restriction not neccessary only full control under D. 

2. Absence of legal authorisation  {misc}

(false imprisonment)

• Burden rests on D to justify the lawfulness of detention.  

  

Negligent trespass

Letang v Cooper - Lord Denning said it was not possible to have negligent trespass and "…the only cause of action is negligence".

Rule in Wilkinson v Downton 

"where a defendant undertakes an act wilfully calculated to cause harm to the plaintif"  (Wilkinson)

O v Rhodes - claim failed on first two elements

Three elements

1. Conduct element – must be words/conduct directed at the claimant for which the is no justification  

2. Mental element – d must intend to cause severe emotional or mental distress.  

3. Consequence element – the claimant must suffer either physical harm or a recognised psychiatric harm.  

Protection from Harassment Act 1997  

Statutory tort, fills a gap in the law - reasonable person standard.   

Exceptions  - Excludes conduct pursued to detect crimes and recovery of damages by companies (DPP v Dziurzynski)

“Harrassment“

s 1(1) - A course of conduct which D knows or ought to know amounts to harassment . Judged objectively (s 1(2)).  

Thomas v News Group -  should be interpreted as its generally understood meaning.   

  

(s7) - Includes “alarming the person or causing distress” 

s7(3(a) - A “course of conduct” happens on at least two occasions.

Ferguson v British Gas - harassment found for the repayment of bills where there were no debts.  

Defences - 6 possible

• Consent

• Mental Capacity Act 2005

• Family Law Reform Act 1969, S8(1)

• Necessity

• Self-defence

• Lawful authority (false imprisonment) 

Consent  

Can come through words and actions.   

Freeman v Home Office - the Burden is on C to prove absence of consent.  

 

R v Williams - Consent must be real and not induced by fraud or misrepresentation

R v  Dica - they had consented to sexual intercourse.

Mental Capacity Act 2005.  

There is a statutory presumption a claimant has capacity to consent unless shown otherwise. 

Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB -  “informed consent”, e.g. knowledge of material risks in surgery.   

Family Law Reform Act 1969, s 8(1).  

A child aged 16 or older can consent to medical treatment without parental involvement.   

Gillick competent - Must be of sufficient intelligence and understanding to appreciate the nature of the proposed treatment.  

Limits in the criminal law  -  R v Brown - cannot consent to gbh.   

Necessity - (limitrd defence) 3

Austin v Metropolitan Police - d can interfere with a claimants bodily autonomy if it was to prevent greater harm from occurring.

Re F (1990)- if medical treatment required to save someone's life.  

MCA 2005 permits medical treatment in C’s “best interests” if they are deemed not capable of providing consent.  

 Self-defence  - 2 requirements, 4

Force must be   

(i) reasonable, and   

(ii) based on an honest and reasonable belief that C will interfere with D bodily integrity.  

Burden of proof on D (Ashley v Sussex Police)

Lane v Holloway  - force should be proportional.  

Cross v Kirkby - d does not have measure the force that they use with mathematical precision.   

  

CL Act 1967, s3 – the right extends to the right to defend someone else from criminal violence.   

Invalid defences

Provocation - Not a valid defence (Lane v Holloway) but may be used to mitigate the amount of damages the claimant receives.

  

Contributory negligence - not a valid defence as suggested by Lord Rodgers in Pakistan National Shipping.  

Lawful authority (false imprisonment)  

A lawful arrest will mean that a police officer or a citizen will not be liable for false imprisonment.  

  

Powers to arrest without warrant can be found in PACE 1984.  

• S24 allows PC to arrest someone without warrant.  

• S24(A) allows a private citizen to arrest someone without a warrant – citizen's arrest.