Transcript
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.