TRESPASS TO THE PERSON.

Any direct intentional interference with the person of another is actionable

in the absence of lawful justification. It is now settled that if the interference
is unintentional the injured party’s only cause of action lies in negligence.
Trespass to person is actionable per se, i.e., without proof of special
damage. The tort seeks to protect personal integrity, which is regarded as
being fundamental that it is protected even in the absence of damage. The
tort of trespass to persons is a fault- based tort-it is therefore not actionable
in the absence of intention. See the case of FOWLER V. LANRING [1959]
1 Q.B. 426

ASSAULT

An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to

apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on another person. It
is an attempt or a threat to hurt another, coupled with an apparent present
liability and intention to do the act. Actual contact is not necessary in an
assault, though it is in a battery. But it is not every threat, when actual
personal violence does not lie that constitutes an assault; there must, in all
cases, be the means of carrying the threat into effect.

The intention as well as the act makes an assault. Therefore, if one strikes
another upon the hand, or arm, or breast in discourse, it is no assault, it is
battery but if one, intending to assault, strikes at another and misses him,
this is an assault; so if he holds up his hand against another, making a fist
in a threatening manner, and says nothing, it is an assault. Initially it was
thought that mere words did not amount to an assault. But the words which
the party threatening uses at the time may either give gestures such a
meaning as may make them amount to an assault, or, on the other hand,
may prevent them from being an assault. Assault of course requires no
contact because its essence is conduct which leads the claimant to
apprehend the application of force. It was stated earlier that some bodily
movement was required for an assault and that threatening words alone
were not actionable, as aptly laid down in R v Meade and Belt (1823) 1
Lew CC 184, that 'no words or singing are equivalent to an assault'. This
latter stand was rejected by the House of Lords in R. vs. Ireland, where it
was optioned that threats on the telephone may be an assault provided the
claimant has reason to believe that they may be carried out in the
sufficiently near future to qualify as “immediate”. The House of Lords have
more recently stated that an assault can be committed by words alone in R
v Ireland [1997] 4 All ER 225, and the Court of Appeal in R v Constanza
[1997] Crim LR 576 opined that, It is much more authoritative that words
will not constitute an assault if they are phrased in such a way that
negatives any threat that the defendant is making. See:Tuberville v
Savage (1669) 86 ER 684 Stephens v Myers (1830) 172 ER 735 The
claimant must have reasonably expected an immediate battery. Thus in
Stephens v Myers (1830) 172 ER 735, the defendant made a violent
gesture at the plaintiff by waiving a clenched fist, but was prevented from
reaching him by the intervention of third parties. The defendant was liable
for assault.

ASSAULT ELEMENTS

 Intent

The defendant must have intended to cause fear or

apprehension of an immediate threat. Assault doesn't solely involve
physical indications of violence thus words and silence can constitute an
 assault as long as they fulfill relevant criteria. That is intent to cause
apprehension of an immediate threat. In R V Ireland The defendant
made a series of silent phone calls to the 3 victims (in attempt to
essentially manace them). It was argued by the defendant that this could
not be considered an Assault since there was no active communication
that took place. Court rejected the argument. It held that silence was to
constitute assault since the communication of silence had the intention
of causing fear on the victims, just as the communication of certain
sentiment via words or actions could.

 Reasonable Apprehension

Apprehension can be understood as as a state of mind

experienced when a person anticipates immediate harmful or offensive
physical contact.

If there is no reasonable apprehension or fear, there is no assault.

Therefore, the claimant must have reasonable beliefof fear that an unlawful
force is about to be applied to them. This reasonableness will be judged
based on the facts which are available to the victim at the time of the
assualt rather than the objective reality of the situation.

The principle can be seen at work in R V St.George where the

defendant had an argument with the victim and took out a gun and pointed
it at the victim. However, the gun was unloaded but it was still an assault
since the claimant apprehended being shot. Thus although there was no
objective danger to the victim, a reasonable person in his position would
have thought there was danger and so it was assault.
In Stephens V Myers (1830) 172 ER 735, the defendant made a violent
gesture at the plaintiff by waiving a clenched fist, but was prevented from
reaching him by the intervention of third parties. The defendant was liable
for assualt because the plaintiff apprehended being hit.

 Causation

The defendant’s act must be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s

reasonable apprehension. The threat or act must be sufficiently immediate
and direct to create fear. The causation must be direct and not too remote.

Examples of Assault

 Pointing a finger in anger to somebody

 Pointing a gun to a person in a threatening manner even though to
the knowledge of the defendant but not to the plaintiff it is unloaded
 Throwing water at a person which does not touch his body.

DEFENCES TO ASSAULT

LAWFUL AUTHORITY

Where the defendant is carrying out a lawful arrest, no tort is committed.

Thus, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 the police can use
reasonable force in order to arrest somebody. Similarly, medical
professionals can use reasonable force within certain situations specified
by the Mental Health Act 1983. It is important to note that people with lawful
authority do not have the authority to do as they will - they still have to act
reasonably. This was illustrated in the case of Collins V Willock (1984)
where a police woman stopped in her police car to speak with the
defendant she was under the impression that the defendant might have
been soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. She asked the defendant to
get into her car. The defendant refused and went to leave, where upon the
officer grabbed her arm. In response, the defendant scratched the officer.

Consent

Consent is another defense that can be considered in the case of assault.

Consent is when the person voluntarily agrees to the intention of the
defendant. Therefore, once a person’s consent has been given to perform
the act, it is not taken as an assault. This may include boxing, sporting
event and medical operations.

Self-defense

Where reasonable force is used in defense of the claimant's person,

property or another person, an individual can use reasonable force to
protect themselves against either an actual or perceived threat of harm
against themselves or another person. The force must be proportionate to
the threat - since the purpose of the force is to repel to threat, it must be no
more substantive than is necessary to do that. This was illustrated in the
case of Collins v Wilcock where a police woman stopped in her police car
to speak with the defendant she was under the impression that the
defendant might have been soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. She
asked the defendant to get into her car. The defendant refused and went to
leave, where upon the officer grabbed her arm. In response, the defendant
scratched the officer. Defendant was charged with assaulting the officer
during course of duty. But however, conviction was quashed since her
action was self-defense.

REMEDIES TO ASSAULT

Damages: courts award these remedies to compensate the injured party

for losses and sometimes to punish a defendant through punitive damages
if their actions were malicious.

Injuctions: a court order that stops a person from performing a certain act
to prevent future by preventing the defendant from the behaviour that led to
the assa

BATTERY.

There are various definitions of Battery in different jurisdictions. Scholars

have expressed their views differently but maintaining the major elements
of Battery

The Black’s Law dictionary defines Battery as “Any unlawful beating or

any other wrongful physical violence on constraint inflicted on a human
being without consent”. Winfield and Jolowicz define battery as “the
intentional infliction of unlawful force on another person.”

Therefore, battery consists of touching another person in violent, angry,

rude or insolent manner against his will, however slight. This was stressed
in the case of Cole v Turner where court held that the least touching of
another in anger is a battery primarily concerns protecting the individual’s
bodily integrity from unlawful interference.

EXAMPLES OF BATTERY

Battery can be committed in many different ways;

beating with a stick, pouring water on a person, shooting a person with

a gun, knocking a person down, running a person down with a motor
vehicle, spitting on a person’s face or throwing stone at a person,
removing a chair when a person is going to seat on it causing their fall,
setting a dog to attack a person

ELEMENTS OF BATTERY

Use of force

There must be force applied that causes the victim or the plaintiff to lose
the sacred nature of their comfort-ability and have injury or loss. The force
applied however slight it is, it is sufficient in a claim Battery. This was seen
in the case of Cole v Turner where the plaintiffs were a husband and wife,
who alleged that the defendant, Turner, committed battery against them.
The court held that; “The least touching of another in anger is a battery.”
This was however established after the court found the action to be hostile.

Battery may be committed on an unconscious person; Battery may be

committed not only when the person is conscious but also when they are
unconscious for example when a person is asleep or during surgery. In
Njareketa v Director of medical services, the appellant a 24-year-old
patient had malignant growth on his leg which was amputated when he was
unconscious out of necessity to save his life. He had at first consented but
later withdrawn his consent. Court found the actions of the defendant to
amount to battery.

Intentional and reckless application of force.

The plaintiff in order to succeed for the claim of battery must establish that
the intention, recklessness or negligence of the defendant in applying the
force. In Wilson v Pringle, the defendant had contended that his action
was not intended to cause the harm but the horseplay of pulling the
plaintiff’s school bag making him fall, suffering a hip injury was considered
as a battery. Croon-Johnson L.J found that the actions were hostile and
stated that it was the act not the injury that was intended. Proving the
intention to cause the harm is not necessary, for as long as there is
intention to injure any person other than the plaintiff, Battery is deemed
present. An act of battery must be intentional, reckless or negligent. Thus,
not all acts of contact or touch are battery.

However, it may be battery, if a person uses violence to force his way

through a crowd in a rude or inordinate manner. To touch a person to
attract his attention is not battery. The defendant must have intended
to make physical contact against the plaintiff. The intention must be
proved and as soon as it proved, the tort of Battery shall stand.

In Fowler v Lanning, the defendant with a gun and he sued for personal
injuries. The plaintiff did not allege that the shooting was intentional or
negligent but simply averred that the defendant on a certain date and place
shot him. The court held that the action must fail. An action for trespass to
person doesn’t lie if the trespass was neither intentional nor negligent
Direct Or Indirect Contact; Battery shall also require that there was
physical contact between the defendant and the plaintiff. The Plaintiff has
to prove that there was indeed contact between him and the defendant.
The contact can be through a medium of some weapon, instrument,
vehicle or anything used or controlled. Nash v Sheen the plaintiff went to
the defendant hair dresser and requested for a perm. Instead, the
defendant gave her an unwanted tone rinse of hair dye which caused
rashes on the head of the plaintiff. It was held that the defendant was
liable for battery. This follows the Minimum Contact Rule which dictates
that the least touch or contact is sufficient to constitute battery. In Cole v
Turner' The least touching of another in anger is a battery'.

Involuntary contact; As a general rule, involuntary contact or infliction or

infliction of force over which a person has no control is not battery and
may therefore be executed from liability. In Gibbons v Pepper a man
was riding a horse when it was frightened by something and it was
disturbed causing it to run out of control, the rider shouted for a man
walking by cautioning him but he didn’t get time to react and the horse hit
him causing injuries. even though the rider didn’t intend to hurt anyone,
court held him to be liable for Battery. Court further explained that if it was
another person that had scared the horse on purpose, then they would be
the ones to blame not the rider.

An Omission may amount to Battery; This is where one causes a tort

by failing to do what is needful for the particular situation. This may be
caused where the person has a legal obligation to fulfill that the moment
and fails to do so causing the loss or injury or un-comfortability to the
complainant. This was seen in Fagan v Metropolitan Police
 Commissioner the defendant accidentally drove over a police officer’s
foot with his tire staying on it when he was asked to reverse the car, he
failed to do so. The court found him liable for battery because he failed to
do the needful causing harm to the police officer

Unauthorized Action (no consent); The tort of battery shall also stand
where the victim did not know about the actions planned by the accused.
The battery is only committed when the victim had no idea about the
contact which was going to happen. The victim must not know about the
action which is planned by the accused. The battery is only committed
when the victim had no idea about the contact which was going to
happen. For example, when surgeons steal organs from patients to sell
them will be considered as a battery. And when the doctor while doing a
surgery finds that the appendix in the body will cause some trouble during
the surgery and the doctor informs the patient that he is going to remove
the appendix, in this situation, the doctor is not liable for the battery as
there was the consent of patient involved.

Defenses to battery

Lawful Authority

Those with lawful authority will be protected from being held liable of either
assault or battery. Thus, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984 the police can use reasonable force in order to arrest somebody
(amongst other activities). Similarly, medical professionals can use
reasonable force within certain situations specified by the Mental Health
Act 1983. It is important to note that people with lawful authority do not
have the authority to do as they will - they still have to act reasonably. This
can be seen in Collins v Wilcock1 where a police woman stopped in her
police car to speak with the defendant - she was under the impression that
the defendant might have been soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.
She asked the defendant to get into her car. The defendant refused and
went to leave, where upon the officer grabbed her arm. In response, the
defendant scratched the officer.

Self-defense

It is a defense where reasonable force is used in defense of the claimant's

person, property or another person, an individual can use reasonable force
to protect themselves against either an actual or perceived threat of harm
against themselves or another person. The force must be proportionate to
the threat - since the purpose of the force is to repel to threat, it must be no
more substantive than is necessary to do that. This principle can be seen in
Revell v Newbury2. The defendant owned an allotment and a shed, in
which he had taken to keeping valuable items. The shed was frequently
broken into, and thus the defendant had begun to sleep in it, armed with a
shotgun. The claimant came along at 2am to break into the shed. The
defendant awoke and shot through a hole in the shed, shooting the
claimant in the arm and torso. Both parties were held criminally liable for
their respective actions, and then the claimant brought a claim in tort
against the defendant, who argued self-defense.

What amounts to self-defense will be a question of fact in each case but

the basic principle is that the force used must be reasonable in proportion
to the attack.

2
Contributory negligence

Prevention of trespass or ejection of a trespasser. It is lawful for any

occupier of land, or for any other person with the authority of the occupier,
to use a reasonable degree of force in order to prevent a trespasser from
entering or his movements or to eject him after entry.

Consent

Consent can also be considered as a defense in the case of assault and

battery. Consent is when the person voluntarily agrees to the intention of
the defendant. So, when the individual has given his consent to perform the
act, then that same act cannot be considered as a battery. But in situations
when the person exceeds the extent of the act, on those grounds the act
can be considered as a battery.

Parental Authority

Whilst becoming increasingly unpopular, parents still have a right to use

physical force to chastise a child (often colloquialism as ‘smacking’.) This
right has important limits, however. The level of force inflicted must be
proportional to the child’s behavior (and has, in any case, an upper limit),
and if the child does not understand the purpose of the punishment, the
defense will fail. This can be seen in A v UK3. ‘A’ was an eight-year-old
whose doctor notified the authorities when he noticed that the boy had
several marks indicative of beating with a cane. Whilst the jury acquitted
the boy’s step-father, a case was brought against the UK in the European
Court of Human Rights, alleging that there had been a failure in law to

3
protect the boy’s Article 3 right to avoid inhumane or degrading
punishment.

REMEDIES TO BATTERY

Damages

Damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for harm or injury

suffered due to the defendant’s wrongful act. And considers severalty of
harm, the defendants conduct and the plaintiff’s circumstance’s when
determining the amount and type of damages to Award.

In Sekitoleko V Attorney General4, the plaintiff, a patient underwent

surgery at a government hospital. During the procedure, the medical team
allegedly left a surgical instrument in the plaintiff’s abdomen causing further
harm and necessitating additional surgery. The plaintiff sued for battery.
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him damages in
compensatory, punitive and extemporary damages

Injunction.

The court may order the party to do or refrain from doing a specific act to
prevent harm or injury to another party purposely to stop wrongful act that
may cause harm or injury to the plaintiff. In Kwingira V Kanyankole, the
plaintiff kwingira was a passenger on a bus owned and driven by the
defendant kanyankole on January 24th 1964, the bus was involved in an
accident due to the defendant’s negligence, Kwingira suffered personal
injuries and property damage. Kwingira sued kanyankole for damages. The
Issue was whether kanyankole negligent in driving the bus. Whether
4
kanyankole was entitled from damages for personal injuries and property
damage. The court held that kanyankole as the bus driver and owner owed
a duty of care to kwingira as a passenger and the court also granted an
injunction to stop the defendant. Lawful Authority

Where the defendant is carrying out a lawful arrest, no tort is

committed. Thus, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 the
police can use reasonable force in order to arrest somebody. Similarly,
medical professionals can use reasonable force within certain situations
specified by the Mental Health Act 1983. It is important to note that people
with lawful authority do not have the authority to do as they will - they still
have to act reasonably. This was illustrated in the case of Collins V
Willock (1984)5 where a police woman stopped in her police car to speak
with the defendant she was under the impression that the defendant might
have been soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. She asked the
defendant to get into her car. The defendant refused and went to leave,
where upon the officer grabbed her arm. In response, the defendant
scratched the officer.

Consent

Consent is another defense that can be considered in the case of

assault. Consent is when the person voluntarily agrees to the intention of
the defendant. Therefore, once a person’s consent has been given to
perform the act, it is not taken as an assault. This may include boxing,
sporting event and medical operations.

Self-defense

5
 Where reasonable force is used in defense of the claimant's person,
property or another person, an individual can use reasonable force to
protect themselves against either an actual or perceived threat of harm
against themselves or another person. The force must be proportionate to
the threat - since the purpose of the force is to repel to threat, it must be no
more substantive than is necessary to do that. This was illustrated in the
case of Collins v Wilcock where a police woman stopped in her police car
to speak with the defendant she was under the impression that the
defendant might have been soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. She
asked the defendant to get into her car. The defendant refused and went to
leave, where upon the officer grabbed her arm. In response, the defendant
scratched the officer. Defendant was charged with assaulting the officer
during course of duty. But however, conviction was quashed since her
action was self-defense.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT
False imprisonment may sound like a
person being dangerously restrained
against their will and at risk of being
seriously injured or killed. In a way, it
is, but also can describe other situations
which aren't so very dangerous
sounding. The definition of false
imprisonment is the unlawful restraint
of someone which affects the person's
freedom of movement. Both the threat
of being physically restrained and
 actually being physically restrained are
false imprisonment. In a
facility setting, such as a nursing home or a hospital, not allowing someone to
leave the building is also false imprisonment.
If someone wrongfully prevents someone else from leaving a room, a vehicle,
or a building when that person wants to leave, this is false imprisonment. This
can apply to family members if the person desiring to leave is an adult. Spouses
have no legal right to confine each other either. False imprisonment; the word
‘false' means ‘erroneous' or ‘wrong'. It is a tort of strict liability and the plaintiff
has not to prove fault on the part of the defendant.

In short, False imprisonment is the unlawful imposition of constraint upon

another's freedom of movement from a particular place. This tort protects a
person from restraint and does not give a person absolute freedom of movement.
Thus, if there is a reasonable escape route there will be no false imprisonment.
See:Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742 and Robinson v Balmain New Ferry [1910]
AC 295

ELEMENTS THAT CONSTITUTE FALSE IMPRISONMENT:

1. The restraint must be complete i.e.
There must be on every side of him a boundary drawn beyond which he cannot
pass. In BIRD V. JONES [1845] 7 QB 742, part of a bridge called
Hammersmith was wrongfully fenced off to provide seats to watch a boat race.
The Plaintiff forced his way into the enclosure, but was prevented from going
on further. As he was in no way prevented from returning, there was no
imprisonment”. A partial restraint is not false imprisonment;
 2. Knowledge of detention is not necessary.
It is not essential that the plaintiff should be aware of the fact of his
imprisonment, provided it is a fact. In GRAINGER v. HILL it was held that
imprisonment is possible even if the claimant is too ill to move in the absence of
any restraint. In MERRING V. GRAHAME- WHITE AVIATION C. [1919]
122 L.T. 44, it was held that a person detained on aerodrome premises in order
to be interrogated was held to be falsely imprisoned although he was not aware
that he was not at liberty to leave. Atkin L.J., said, “ it appears to me that a
person can be imprisoned while he is asleep, while he is in state of drunkenness,
while he is unconscious and while he is a lunatic. Of course the damages will be
nominal.
The ground for this opinion is that although a person might not know he was
imprisoned, his captors might be boasting elsewhere that he was; and,

3. The restraint must be complete/ unlawful.

There must be on every side of him a boundary drawn beyond which he cannot
pass. In BIRD V JONES, a part of the bridge called Hammersmith was
wrongly fenced off to provide seats to watch a boat race. The Plaintiff, forced
his way into the enclosure, but was prevented from going on further. As he was
in no way prevented from returning, there was no “imprisonment”. A partial
restraint is not false imprisonment.

4. Means of escape. If a person has the means of escape, but does not know
it, his detention is nevertheless false unless any reasonable man would
have realized that he had an available outlet. Thus if I pretend to turn the
key of the door of a room in which you are and take away the key, it
 would be unreasonable if you made no attempt to see whether the door
was in fact locked.

An accidental or inadvertent confinement, such as when someone is mistakenly

locked in a room, also does not constitute false imprisonment; the individual
who caused the confinement must have intended the restraint.
False imprisonment often involves the use of physical force, but such force is
not required. The threat of force or arrest, or a belief on the part of the person
being restrained that force will be used, is sufficient.
The restraint can also be imposed by physical barriers or through
unreasonable duress imposed on the person being restrained.

DEFENCE FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Lawful arrest. Where the defendant is carrying out a lawful arrest no tort is
committed. The precise procedure must be carried out in order to make an
arrest. The arrested person must be told the true grounds on which they are
being arrested- exceptions are in the event where the person to be arrested is
resisting.
Prevention of trespass or ejection of a trespasser. It is lawful for any occupier of
land, or for any other person with the authority of the occupier, to use a
reasonable degree of force in order to prevent a trespasser from entering or his
movements or to eject him after entry.
Defendant acting in support of the law. Sometimes an assault or
imprisonment may be justified on the ground that the defendant was acting in
support of the law. The onus of proving legal justification lies on the defendant.
 Parental and other authority. A parent is not guilty of an assault if he physically
interferes with his or her child by way of reasonable restraint or chastisement, or
therapeutic reasons.

FALSE ARREST

Is a type of civil claim in tort law where a person is held custody without
proper cause or legal justification. Its also known as an lawfully or wrongful
arrest, and it occurs when ones freedom of movement is intentionaly
restricted by another person or authority legal justification or the persons
consent. The claim falls under the broader tort of false imprisonment, which
involves any total restraint of persons liberty for any length of time.

ELEMENTS OF UN LAWFUL ARREST

unlawful detention: when one is being held with out lawful justification. In
Collins v wilock (1984) a police officer wished to question a woman in
relation to her alleged activity as a prostitute.

Lack of legal justification: there was no probable cause of legal authority

for the arrest or detention.

Intentional act: the dentation must be an intentional act by the defendant

Restraint of freedom: the plaintiffs liberty was completely restricted, even if

when there was no physical was used.

REMIDIES TO UN LAWFULL ARREST

Damages: one can be paid for the damages caused during the time of
arrest. For example, if one was arrested while at his or her shop and her
property was damaged, she can be paid for for the damages caused.

Compensation: there can be compensation as a result of false arrest. For

example, if one lost his property at the time of arrest and as the result of
the arrest then has to be compensated

Injunction: this is where court will stop the un lawful detention to continue.