Hi, welcome back to The Australian Law Student, LawIn4
podcast: your go-to podcast for legal insights in four minutes
or less. Today we're talking about our
third intentional tort, false imprisonment.
But first, our obligatory disclaimer: The LawIn4 is
produced by law students for law students.
It is not, nor is it intended to constitute, legal advice.
If you require legal assistance, you should contact your local
law society who can direct you appropriately.
For more information on The Australian Law Student, visit
our website at theaustlawstudent.com Okay,
trespass to the person. It shares similarities with
battery and assault. Like its counter parts, it
requires directness, a positive act, and fault, with damage not
being a prerequisite. Okay, false imprisonment
involves a direct act by the defendant which intentionally,
recklessly, or negligently deprives the plaintiff of their
liberty without lawful justification.
The act that leads to the deprivation of liberty must be
the defendant's own act, however, encouraging others to
carry out the false imprisonment is also sufficient.
A classic case which illustrates this is Dixon and Water, where
shop manager falsely accused the plaintiff of shoplifting and was
found liable for parading a police officer to carry out the
imprisonment. Next, the imprisonment must be
total and must restrict the plaintiff's movement in all
directions. Mere obstruction of movement in
a particular direction won't suffice.
In Burton Jones, the plaintiffs claim failed because they could
have turned around and exited using a different path.
The determination of total imprisonment often hinges on
whether there is a reasonable means of escape, taking into
account safety, justification, and the plaintiff's will to do
so. Burton and Davies highlights
this, whether plaintiff had no reasonable means of escape from
a moving car because jumping out was their only option.
Notably, a plaintiff can be falsely imprisoned without
imposing physical boundaries upon them.
In Simes's and Martin, the plaintiff, mistaken as an
individual with a warrant was taken to the police watch house.
Even though he was allowed to leave halfway through, he was
considered falsely imprisoned from the time he was required to
go with the police until his formal release.
Finally, false imprisonment underscores the importance of
the plaintiff's belief in their liberty being unlawfully
restricted. In Balmain, New Ferry and
Robertson, a false imprisonment claim failed because the
plaintiff, aware of the conditions displayed at the
Warf's entrance could not be said to have been held against
his will. As we wrap up this episode on
false imprisonment, it's clear that this tort demands a careful
examination of the defendant's actions, the extent of the
plaintiff's confinement, and the presence of reasonable means of
escape. Join us next time on The
Australian Law Students' LawIn4 podcast.
As always, if you have any suggestions, please email us at
team@theauslawstudent.com or leave a comment in your review
on Spotify or Apple podcasts.