DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

2014-15

SUBJECT:- TORTS PROJECT

PROJECT ON:
FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Submitted By:Submitted To:Abhishek Jain

Radheyshyam Prasad

Mr.

Roll No. 10
Assistant Professor(Law)
Section 'A'
RMLNLU

Dr.

B.A. L.L.B (Hons.)1st Semester

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
2. OBJECTIVE
3. INTRODUCTION
4. FALSE IMPRISONMENT-MEANING
5. DEFENCES
6. REMEDIES FOR THE TORT OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT
7. SUMMARY
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
2

I would like to extend my gratitude towards my Law of Torts teacher , Assistant

Professor (Law), Mr Radheyshyam Prasad who gave me the opportunity to work and
prepare a project on this topic. Without his perennial guidance and inspiration this
project would never have been completed.
Special thanks must also be given to the library at Dr. RMLNLU ,without whose
excellent facilities it would have been amuch more arduous task to complete this
project.

OBJECTIVE
The objective behind the project is to find out the essentiality of the total restraint of
liberty while constituting the tort of False Imprisonment as well the meaning of the
offence of False Imprisonment by itself.

INTRODUCTION
The offence of False Imprisonment falls under the Tort of Trespass to Person, which
involves direct interference with a person's body or liberty. In its original meaning
3

'Trespass' signified no more than 'wrong' and the great bulk of trespasses were dealt
with in the local courts.
A trespass which also fell under the breach of the king's peace, however, fell under
the jurisdiction of the king's courts, and in course of time the allegation that the
trespass was committed vi et armis came to be used in common form in order to
preserve the jurisdictional propriety of an action brought in those courts , whether or
not there was any truth in it . In its developed form the writ of trespass contained
injuries of land , to goods and to the person.
There are three main forms- namely Assault, Battery and False Imprisonment. Their
common element is that the wrong must be committed by 'Direct Means' What
precisely this means is difficult to say . The classical illustration was of throwing a log
in to the highway and hitting a passer-by. If someone stumbles on it then the means
would become indirect.
The obvious form of False Imprisonment is physical seizure of the claimant by an
officer, it is clear that the tort is equally committed if the claimant submits to a legal
authority asserted by the officer.
Acts of trespass to the person are crimes as well as torts. It is therefore necessary to
outline briefly the mechanism for awarding compensation for crimes not within the
scope of tort lawFirst, criminal proceedings may lead to compensation of victim by the offender
without a separate civil action, for since 1972 the criminal courts have had the power
to order an offender to pay compensation to his victim. The main source of
compensation for victims is the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme . The
original scheme was announced on a non statutory basis in 1964 , paying
compensation for personal injury caused by crime of violence broadly in line with
common law damages for tort , subject to restrictions on quantum of loss for earnings
and deductions in respect to benefits coming to victim from other sources.
The scheme was never implemented on a statutory basis as it was deemed to be too
expensive and in 1993 it was replaced with a tariff scheme giving fixed amounts for
specific injuries but no additional payments in regard to loss of earnings and
expenses. The scheme we have today is a political compromise introduced by
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT-MEANING
This is the infliction of bodily restraint which is not expressly or impliedly authorised
by law.

Both 'false ' and ' imprisonment' are somewhat misleading terms . False doesnot
necessarily mean mendacious or fallacious , but it is used in the less common sense of
erroneous or wrong. And it is quite possible to commit the tort without imprisonment
of a person in the common acception of that term . In fact neither physical contact nor
anything resembling a prison is necessary. Eg- Ifa lecturer locks his class in the
lecture hall after the usual class hours have passed that amounts to false
imprisonment; as is not allowing aperson to leave his house or any part of it.
Imprisonment according to old Termes de la Ley is :
' The restraint of man's liberty whether it be in an open field or in the stocks or cage
or in a man's own house , as well as in the common gaol. And in all these places the
restrained party is said to be a prisoner so long as he hath not his liberty freely to go at
all times to all places whither he will, without bail or mainprize"
There is no false imprisonment where the claimant accepts the defendant's order but
he is not to be taken to be consenting just because he does not resist by force. A
difficult line must be drawn between consent on one hand and peaceful but unwilling
submission to express or implied threats of force or asserted legal authority (whether
valid or not) on the other.
Also it has been held in Grainger v. Hill that imprisonment is possible even if the
claimant is unable to move in the absence of estraint. In Meeering's case the court
went much further by holding that the tort is committed even if the claimant did not
know that he was being detained. The facts were that the claimant being suspected of
stealing a bottle of varnish from the defendants, his employers was asked by two of
the police to go with them to the company office. He assented and at his suggestion
they took a shortcut there. On arrival he was taken to the waiting room, the two police
men remaining in the neighborhood. It was held by the majority that the defendants
were liable as the claimant was no longer a free man after coming into the contact of
the policemen.

The basis of the law stated in Meering is that the personal liberty of a person is
supremely important so interference with it must be deterred even when there is no
consciousness nor harm. There must however be a detention . A person who is in a
coma after an accident is not said to be detained by the hospital. A more difficult case
is R. v Bournewood etc. NHS Trust where a patient due to lack of mental soundness
did not have the capacity to consent and was admitted as a voluntary patient. In fact
the court held that tjhe hospital's actions were justified at common law by necessity

but the majority were of the view that he was not detained by being kept in an
unlocked ward, even though he was sedated and closely supervised.
RESTRAINT MUST BE COMPLETE
The word restraint means that a person is held in such a manner that he is unable to
move in any direction or go to any place he might want to.
Thus in order to fulfill the offence of False Imprisonment it is essential that the
restraint of a person is total and so complete that there is no means available for
escape other than through outside help.
In Bird v Jones the defendants wrongfully enclosed some of the footpath on the
Hammersmith Bridge and put seats on it for use by the spectatators of a regatta on the
river; also they charged a fee for entry to this enclosure. The claimant inisted on
passing through this part of the footpath and climbed over the fence of the enclosure
without paying the charge. The defendants refused to let him go forward but allowed
him to go back to the carriage way and cross to the other side of the bridge if he so
wished. He declined to do so and remained in the enclosure for half an hour. The
defendants were held not to committed False Imprisonment.
A person would be said to be imprisoned if he was locked in a large building even if
he was given permission to roam around inside of it; it has been held that unlawful
conscription is capable of being false imprisonment.
If however there is a complete restraint on a persons liberty , that is false
imprisonment even if it lasts only for a brief period of time. This means that many
acts which are primarily battery may also involve false imprisonment.

MEANS OF ESCAPE
Even if a person has a means of escape , but does not know it , it is submitted that his
detention is nonetheless false imprisonment unless any reasonable person would have
that he had an available outlet. A particularly complex case is where the person has a
known means of escape but has forgotten about it. A reasonable person may suffer
from a lapse of memory.
For instance if the captive is a blind man or a child he should be in a position to be
able to locate the means. The means must also provide a reasonable way of escape. If
6

a window providing escape is so high that the probability of getting injured is very
high then such escape is no significance and such detention amounts to False
Imprisonment .

DEFENCES
Most of the defences depend upon conditions which in general negate liability in tort.
In R. v Governor of Brockhill Prison the claimant was released from prison by
Habeas Corpus when a decision of the Divisional Court disapproved earlier cases
dealing with a mwethod of calculation of the release date of prisoners with concurrent
sentences. Thus the claimant received 5000 pouns in damages for the 59 days he had
spent in prison even after his proper release date
Some defences frequently used are :
REASONABLE CONDITION-It is not a tort to prevent aperson from leaving your
premises because he did not fulfil a reasonable condition. In Robinson v Balmain Ferry
the claimant paid a penny for entry to the defendant's wharf from which he proposed to
cross the river by one of the defendant's ferry boats. A boat had just gone and another
would not come for 20 minutes. The claimant wished to leave the wharf and was directed
to the turnstile for the exit . There he refused to pay the penny that was to be charged for
the exit., as was written on a notice board. The defendant declined to let him leave unless
he paid up. The Judicial Committee held that this was not False Imprisonment.
A similar case but one containing a greater difficulty is the case of Herd v Weardale . A
miner in breach of his contract refused to do certain work allotted to him and demanded
to be brought to the surface five hours before the shift ended. He was not allowed to
leave for 20 minutes. The essential difference in this case and Robinson's is that the
conduct of the defendant was an omission rather than a positive act of restraint Since
False Imprisonment is Trespass to the person it may be held that this was a sufficient
answer to the claim. Nevertheless the decision in favor of the defendants turned on the
basis that the miner himself was in breach of contract and had no right to be brought up
before his shift ended. it would have qualified as False Imprisonment had the employers
rrefused to bring him up after the shift had ended.

IMPRISONMENT, ARREST AND DETENTION

By sec 12(1) of the Prisoner Act 1952 " a prisoner whether sentenced to imprisonment or
committed to prison on remand pending trial '' is lawfully confined in the prison so there
is no action for false imprisonment against the prison governor or any officer acting under
his authority. However it would be wrong to say that the law of false imprisonment does
7

not apply at all in the prison. The prisoner could for instance bring a claim against a
fellow prisoner who locked him up in a cell .
The proper remedy is by way of judicial review or , if harm is suffered by way of by an
action It may also amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Art. 3 of the
European Convention on Human Rights for which damages are available under Human
Rights Act 1998.
A lawful arrest is of course no ground for false imprisonment and it follows that a person
who arrests another in pursuance of a valid warrant cannot be sued. If an arrest is
authorised it does not become unauthorised because of use if excessive force( though an
action for battery would lie. ) The law concerning arrest is contained in the Poilce and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended, which is to be replaced by a new legislation.
Traditionally the common law has been concerned to contain intrusions into personal
liberty even if not accompanied by circumstances of aggravation or high handednessand
substantial damages may be awarded even for brief unlawful detentions
The vindication of liberty has symbolic and admonitory values and while most of us may
prefer a night in the cells to a broken leg it does not follow that the damages be greater
than the former Awards for false imprisonment from the police can be substantial even
without the addition of exemplary or aggravated damages.
Where the unlawful detention is continuing the claimant may may seek a writ of habeas
corpus :this is not often used but but has certainly not fallen into disuse. A person who is
unlawfully detained may use self help to escape including reasonable force though this is
a risky course since the power of arrest is likely to rest not only on the commission of an
offence but also in the alternative upon reasonable suspicion thereof. Hence even an
innocent person who resists arrest may be liable for tort for battery if the arrester had
reasonable grounds.

REMEDIES FOR TORT OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT

The remedies available under law for a victim of False Imprisonment are

Action for damages- Whenever the plaintiff has been wrongfully detained he
can always bring up action for the torts committed. Compensation may be
claimed not only the suppression of liberty but also for disgrace and
8

humiliation caused as a result of such detention. According to McGregor " The

details of how the damages gor false imprisonment are worked out are few .
Generally it is not a pecuniary loss or of dignity and much is left to the
discretion of the jury . The principles head appear to be the loss of liberty i.e.
time and the loss to feeling i,e the indignity , mental suffering, disgrace and
humiliation as well as any accompanying loss of social status.
Self - help- This is remedy available to a person while he is still under
detention. A person is authorised to use a reasonable amount of force in order
to escape from such detention rather than waiting for lawful intervention and
procuring his release thereby.
Habeas Corpus - It is a speedier remedy for securing release of a person
wrongfully detained. Such a writ may be issued by the Supreme Court under
Article 32 or a High Court under Article 226. By this writ the person detaining
is required to produce the detained person before Court and justify his
detention. If the court finds that his detention is without legal justification then
it may order the release of the detained person.

SUMMARY
Thus summarising every aspect we have covered in this project

There are various kinds of offences under torts such as Trespass , Defamation ,
Nuisance etc.
False Imprisonment is a tort under Trespass to Person.
The essentials to constitute this tort are1) Total Restraint
2) No lawful justification
The damages vary on the severity of the offences
9

There are remedies such as Habeas Corpus, and suing the defendant by initiating an
action against them.
The defences available to the defendants are Detention due to reasonable conditions and
circumstances which make it imperative to restrain the claimant.
False Imprisonment usually yields large damages due to resulting mental and physical
damages.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WINSFIELD & JOLOWICZ -17TH EDITION (W.V.H ROGERS)

LAW OF TORTS- R.K. BANGIA
THE LAW OF TORTS- RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL
WWW.LEXISNEXIS.COM
WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
10

11