Laws1113 - Final Exam Cases - Assault, Battery And False Imprisonment

Front 1

Innes v Wylie and Others

Back 1

Must be a positive act.

Front 2

Reynolds v Clarke

Back 2

Must be direct, cannot be consequential.

Front 3

Gray v Barr

Back 3

Assault must be an act the defendant intended to do - There is no need to have intended the consequences, particularly if they were a reasonable result of the actions.

Front 4

Scott v Shepherd

Back 4

Must be direct - Any intervening acts made out of necessity still constitute directness.

Front 5

Stephens v Myers

Back 5

Assault must be a positive act /directly/ threatening battery, but which does not result in battery.

Front 6

Barton v Armstrong; Zanker v Varzokas

Back 6

If the threat produces a /fear/ of immediate battery, then it is assault, even if no /immediate/ battery was actually intended or threatened.

Front 7

Brady v Scahtzel

Back 7

Fear is not a component; that a reasonable person would expect battery is the only issue.

Front 8

Tuberville v Savage

Back 8

A condition placed on a threat can prevent it being an assault.

Front 9

Hall v Fonceca

Back 9

Plaintiff must prove the defendant intended to create the apprehension of battery.

Front 10

Herd v Weardale Steel

Back 10

Must be a positive act, or inaction were an obligation to act is present.

Front 11

Bird v Jones

Back 11

Must be a total restraint - Blocking off one route does not constitute false imprisonment where others are available.

Front 12

Symes v Mahon

Back 12

Words can be sufficient to entail complete deprivation of freedom if backed by authority.

Front 13

Myer Stores v Soo

Back 13

Being cowed by numbers is sufficient to achieve total restraint.

Front 14

Murray v Minister of Defence

Back 14

Awareness of imprisonment at the time is not necessary, the only relevant factor is total restraint.

Front 15

Marion's Case

Back 15

Content required to be proven by defendant.