Trespass To The Person

Front 1

Definition of Battery

Back 1

Lord Goff in Collins v Wilcock- The actual infliction of unlawful force on another person.

Front 2

Definition of Assault

Back 2

Lord Goff in Collins v Wilcock- An act which causes another to reasonably apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force on their person.

Front 3

Definition of False Imprisonment

Back 3

The unlawful imposition of constraint on another's freedom of movement from a particular place.

Front 4

3 requirements for an actionable Battery

Back 4

1) The intentional infliction of unlawful (though not necessarily hostile) force.
2) The force must be immediate and direct.
3) There must be no lawful justification/defences.

Front 5

4 requirements for an actionable Assault:

Back 5

1) The defendant must intend or be careless as to the claimant's apprehension of unlawful force.
2) The claimant must reasonably apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.
3) The threat must be imminent and direct.
4) There must be no lawful justification/defences.

Front 6

3 requirements for False Imprisonment:

Back 6

1) The defendant must intend (or be subjectively reckless as to the consequences of his actions) to restrict the claimant's freedom of movement.
2) There must be a complete restriction of movement.
3) There must be no lawful justification/ defences.

Front 7

Case for Battery- Unlawful force- suggesting that hostility IS necessary.

Back 7

Wilson v Pringle [1987]
-Schoolboys playing in the corridor- one got injured.
-The defendant argued that it was not an actionable battery as there was no hostility/intention to injure.
-It was held that the claim would fail if the defendant could demonstrate that the touching was generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life.

Front 8

Case for Battery- Unlawful force- suggesting that hostility is NOT necessary.

Back 8

Re F (Mental Patient Sterilisation) [1990]
-'treatment by a surgeon who mistakenly thinks a patient consented/an over-friendly slap on the back/ a prank that gets out of hand.- all of these things may transcend the bounds of lawfulness, without being hostile.
-THEREFORE, hostility is not necessary for the requirement of unlawful force.

Front 9

Case for Battery- Direct and immediate force

Back 9

DDP v K [1990] (Acid)
-Even though the acid wasn't directly thrown in the defendant's face, an action in battery ws still found.
-The courts have interpreted 'directness' flexibly, and there is more likely to be a claim if there is a shorter period of time between the act and the infliction of force.

Front 10

2 definitions of Intention

Back 10

1) A willed, voluntary action, rather than conduct which is outside the defendant's control.

2) The consequences of one's willed actions- e.g to touch r hurt someone/score a goal.

Front 11

Cases for Battery- Intention

Back 11

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2009]
-Smith LJ said that intention included 'subjective recklessness' where the defendant could foresee that their actions would have the relevant consequences.

Williams v Humphrey [1975] (pushed in swimming pool)
-The defendant does not need to have intended to cause the harm if it was a foreseeable consequence of his actions. Therefore, the actual harm does not have to be intentional- just the action.

Front 12

Defence: Consent
Case for refusal of consent.

Back 12

- There is no battery where the claimant agreed to the defendant's touching in the way he did.
-The claimant's level of understanding/ maturity must have been sufficient to enable them to consent.
-The claimant must not have been forced to consent by somebody else.

Re T ( adult refusal of treatment) [1993]
-An adult patient who suffers no mental incapacity has an absolute right to choose whether or not to consent to medical treatment. This right is not limited to decisions which others might regard as sensible.

Front 13

Defence: Necessity

Case for Necessity

Back 13

-In situations where the claimant is unable to consent, the defendant may be able to rely on the limited defence of necessity.

Re F [1990]
-Where a patient is unconscious but otherwise competent and not known to object to the treatment, doctors may intervene in the best interests of the patient.

Front 14

Mental Capacity Act 2005

Case

Back 14

Lays down a 2 stage test for identifying mental capacity.

Section 2- the claimant must e unable to make a decision due to a disturbance in the functioning of the brain.
Section 3- The claimant is unable to do this if they are unable to: understand the information relevant, retain the information, use the information as part of the decision-making process, or communicate the decision.

B v NHS Hospital Trust [2002]
-Under section 4(1) a person is not treated as being unable to make a decision just because they make an unwise one.

Front 15

Defence: Self-defence

Back 15

Ashley v Chief Constable of West Sussex [2008]
-The court held that in relation to a civil claim, the defence of self-defence would be effective if:
the necessity to take action was judged on the facts as the defendant honestly believed them to be, and if he made a mistake of fact, it was a reasonable mistake to have made.
Furthermore, the force used must have been objectively reasonable and proportionate.

Front 16

Case for Assault: Reasonable Apprehension

Back 16

Stephen v Myers (1830)
-Parish Council asks the defendant to leave the meeting, who then threatens the claimant with violence.
-It was held that the claimant did not have to show that he was actually scared- reasonable apprehension is objectively assessed.
-Therefore the defendant was found liable for assault.

Front 17

Case for Assault: Immediate and Direct threat.

Back 17

R v Ireland [1998]
-The defendant was convicted of assault for making malicious phone-calls to women.
-Originally is was held that 'mere words' could not amount to an assault.
-However, in this case, the recognisable psychiatric illness amounted to 'bodily harm'
-A silent caller may be guilty of assault depending on the circumstances- he clearly intends his silence to cause fear, and the victim is assailed by uncertainty about his intentions, therefore she may fear the possibility of immediate personal violence (apprehension on immediate infliction of force)

ENDED ANY DOUBT OVER WHETHER MERE WORDS COULD AMOUNT TO AN ASSAULT.
Lord Steyn- 'A thing said is a thing done.'

Front 18

Case for Assault: Where there was no immediate/ direct threat.

Back 18

Mbasogo v Logo Ltd [2007]
-The claim was struck out as it was not clear that the advance group of mercenaries was even armed, still less that they had the capacity to carry out an immediate attack.

Front 19

Case for False Imprisonment- Intention

Back 19

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2009]
- Prison officers took unlawful strike action which resulted in the prisoner being confined to his cell for the day.
-As the prison officers took no positive steps to keep the respondent in his cell, it could not amount to false imprisonment.
-Plus, there was not a direct causal link between their strike and his imprisonment- it was the governor's order to keep him confined.

Front 20

Case for False Imprisonment- Complete restriction of Movement

Back 20

Bird v Jones [1845]
-Plaintiff attempted to pass through Hammersmith bridge but was stopped by some police officers who had cordoned the area off.
-He was told that he could go another way, and it was held that as he had a reasonable means of not being restricted, it did not amount to false imprisonment.
Robinson v Blamain Ferry Co [2910] confirmed that if there is a reasonable means of escape, it will not amount to false imprisonment.

Front 21

Case for False Imprisonment- Knowledge of Imprisonment.

Back 21

Meering v Grahame-White Aviation [1920]
-A person can be imprisoned while he is asleep, in a state of drunkeness, unconscious or a lunatic....of course the damages might be diminished.
-It is not necessary to show that the claimant know of their imprisonment.

Front 22

Defences for False Imprisonment

Back 22

Necessity- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2007]- no breach of right to liberty as it was necessary to prevent a breach of the peace.

Statutory Authority- R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurt Prison ex p Hague.

Consent- If the claimant consents to being imprisoned by the defendant then no tort will be committed. Similarly, if the claimant withdraws his consent and is released within a reasonable period of time then there will be no false imprisonment.
Herd v Weardale [1915]- Claimant was detained for 20 minutes but claimed that he had withdrawn his consent. The court held that this length of time did not amount to false imprisonment.

Front 23

Differences between Trespass and Negligence.

Back 23

1) Trespass torts are actionable per se, whereas an action in negligence requires proof of loss.

2) Some types of harm cannot be recovered in negligence.