Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow: False Imprisonment
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow: False Imprisonment
LAW OF TORTS
Project
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement..........................................................................................2
Objectives......................................................................................................3
Research Methodology...................................................................................3
Introduction....................................................................................................4
Essential elements..........................................................................................5
Defences.........................................................................................................8
Remedies......................................................................................................10
Cases Pertaining to False Imprisonment......................................................13
Conclusion....................................................................................................15
Bibliography.................................................................................................16
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Above all else, I would like to thank the Almighty for his blessings upon us.
Although, I have worked hard for this project, it would not have been possible
without the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend
my sincere thanks to all of them.
I am highly obligated to Ms. Ankita Yadav for her direction and continuous
observation as well as for providing essential information regarding the project
& also for her support in completing the project.
I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to all those people who
gave me attention and their invaluable time.
2
OBJECTIVES
To study about False imprisonment, study about some cases based on this,
enquire the essential elements ofit, see defences available for it and look into the
remedies that a person has for it.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Doctrinal Research: In this we go through literature available on the subject
matter and thereon propound conclusion based on our study.
3
INTRODUCTION
False imprisonment is restraining a person in a bounded area without
justification or consent. False imprisonment is a common law misdemeanor and
a tort. It applies to private as well as governmental detention.
For imprisonment, it is not necessary that the person should be put behind bars,
but he should be confined in such an area from where there are no possible
ways of escape except the will of the person who is confining the person within
that area. It is not the degree of the imprisonment that matters but it is the
absence of lawful authority to justify unlawful confinement that is of relevance.
The internment and non-movement of any chattel, i.e., goods is also considered
to be a part of the concept of false imprisonment.
False arrest is the arrest of the individual by the police officer or private person
without lawful authority. False arrest and false imprisonment are virtually
indistinguishable except in their terminology and have been held by the courts
as a single tort. False imprisonment is an intentional tort, like those of assault,
battery, unlawful harassment and invasion of privacy. These are termed as torts
of trespass to a person.
Depriving someone of freedom of movement by holding a person in a confined
space or by physical restraint includingbeing locked in a car, driven about witho
ut opportunity to get out, being tied to chair, or locked in a closet. It may be the
followup to a false arrest (holding someone in the office of a department store, f
or example), but more often it resembles kidnapping with no belief or claim of a
legal right to hold the person. Therefore, false imprisonment is often a crime, an
d ifproved is almost always the basis of a lawsuit for damages.
4
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
Period of Confinement: However short the period of unlawful
detention an action for false imprisonment will always lie ,provided that
the other requirements of the torts are satisfied. Confinement for a very
short period, say fifteen minutes is sufficient to create liability of false
imprisonment. The period of confinement is generally of no relevance
except in the estimation of damages.
5
Knowledge of The Plaintiff: There is no requirement that the
plaintiff alleging false imprisonment was aware of the restraint on his
freedom at the time of his confinement. This can be illustrated by ctitng
the example of a case. In Meering v. Grahame White Aviation Co a man
persuade by works police to remain in his office, but unaware that had he
tried to leave he would be prevented from doing so, successfully
recovered damages for false imprisonment. In Herring v Boyle an action
brought by a schoolboy against his headmaster for being detained in the
school during the holidays because his parents had not paid the fees
failed. Actual knowledge of detention is not a necessary element of this
tort . Proof of a total restraint of liberty is sufficient.
6
were prepared to section L if he attempted to leave did not mean they had
imprisoned him.
7
of the use of a force in the mind of the person. If the words or conduct
are such as to induce reasonable apprehension of force such that the
person is effectually restrained, than it will constitute false imprisonment.
DEFENCES
To avoid liability in false imprisonment the defendant must either show that he
did not imprison the plaintiff or that he had reasonable grounds of to justify his
imprisonment. The presence of probable cause for imprisonment is not a
defence unless it constitutes reasonable grounds for acting in defense of
property or in making an arrest without warrant. An offer to release the plaintiff
for temporary period time has no effect on the action of false imprisonment.
Irrespective of the above fact, there can be certain other factors due to which the
defendant can be exonerated from liability or the damages can be mitigated. If a
person acting under a statute arrests a person, with the power that has been
vested in him by the statute, than that person cannot be held liable. For example
many state legislatures in USA have enacted statutes giving the merchants a
qualified privilege to detain suspected shoplifters.
8
2. Probable Cause: It is a complete defence to actions for false
imprisonment, and false arrest specially. When the probable cause is
established than the action of false imprisonment and false arrest fails
completely. It is said that the test for probable cause for imprisonment and
arrest is an objective one, based not on the individual’s actual guilt, but
upon the information of credible facts or information that would induce a
person of ordinary caution to believe the accused to be guilty. A defendant
who in a false imprisonment or false arrest action has established the
probable cause for the alleged tort than he has no additional obligation to
prove. Even malicious motives will not support a claim if probable cause
is found to exist.
On the other hand, some courts have expressly implied that the plaintiff is
required in a false arrest action to show a lack of probable cause for the
detention, or indicated that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that lack
of probable cause by affirmative evidence.
9
contributory negligence can be proved for the mitigation of damages but it
is not taken as an absolute defence for false imprisonment.
REMEDIES
1. Action for Damages:Damages in false imprisonment are those which
flow from the detention. The damages for false arrest are to be measured
only to the time of arraignment or indictment. There is no legal rule for the
assessment of the damages and this is entirely left on the court. The
grounds for damages include injury to the person and physical suffering,
mental suffering and humiliation, loss of time earnings and interruption of
businesses, medical expenses incurred, injury to the reputation etc.
The arresting officer is liable for damages incase of false arrest up to the
time the officer produced the person before the judicial officer and is not
liable thereafter. The damages for false arrest are to be measured only to the
time of arraignment or indictment. Where however there exists continuity
between an unlawful arrest and subsequent discharge of the accused as to
constitute one continuous unlawful act, the defendant is liable for all the
consequences resultant from false arrest.
The scope of damages recoverable goes beyond those that are already
suffered. The general rule is that, in an action for personal torts future
damages to an injured person are an element of recovery, where there is
reasonable certainty that they will result in false imprisonment.
10
imprisoned without knowing it. In such cases the plaintiff might obtain
only nominal damages. Mental suffering including fright, shame and
mortification from the indignity and disgrace, consequent upon an illegal
detention, is usually considered an injury for which compensation may be
made in an action for false arrest or false imprisonment. The fact that no
physical injury was inflicted on one complaining of false imprisonment has
been held to be an insufficient ground for denying the recovery of
reasonable compensation for mental suffering.
11
4. Writ of Habeas Corpus: This writ is considered to be a golden remedy
by the English Law. The Supreme Court of India and High Court of states
issue this writ under article 32 and 226 respectively. This is concerned with
the cases of false arrest or for prolonged detention by police officers. Here
the person can apply for the writ that will command him to come to the
court on a certain day, stating the day and the cause of his detention and
than abiding by the decision made by the court. The decision will be that
either the prisoner will be released or if the detention is proved than he will
be speedily produced before the court for a trial.
12
CASES PERTAINING TO FALSE
IMPRISONMENT
BIRD v. JONES (1845):Part of a highway is closed off for spectators of
a boat race, who paid for their seats. Bird (the plaintiff) wanted to walk
through the enclosure, and after hopping over the enclosure is stopped by
two officers (one of whom is Jones, the plaintiff). The officers told Bird that
he could not pass through the enclosure (where the seats were) (in addition
he had the barriers of the water in one direction and part of the enclosure in
the other) - but they DID tell him he was free to move in the other direction.
13
BHIM SINGH v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR (1986):On
the opening day of the Budget Session of the Legislative Assembly, Shri
Bhim Singh was suspended from the Assembly. He questioned the
suspension in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir. The order of suspension
was stayed by the High Court. The next day, he was arrested and was taken
away by the police. His wife filed the present application for the issue of a
writ to direct the respondents to produce Shri Bhim Singh before the court,
to declare his detention illegal and to set him at liberty.
Holding: The court held that the detention was illegal and qualified as false
imprisonment.
14
CONCLUSION
The tort of false imprisonment is one of the most severe forms of human rights
violation. The Indian socio-legal system is based on non-violence, mutual
respect and human dignity of the individual. Even the prisoners have human
rights because the prison torture is not the last drug in the Justice
Pharmacopoeia but a confession of failure to do justice to a living man. In fact
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution also recognizes the same. Article 20 with
its sub-clauses re-enforces the same, and seeks to protect convicts from being
held down due to ex post facto laws (Art. 20 (a)), double jeopardy (Art. 20 (b))
and self-incrimination (Art. 20 (c)).
Thereby, after analyzing the various case laws and going through the various
principles of Tort Law, it can be concluded that:
The right of a person to personal liberty, freedom and life with dignity has
been guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be
abrogated even during emergency, and false imprisonment is incongruous of
the same.
The fact that a convict is imprisoned and has to serve a sentence, doesn’t
give the jail authorities any right to torment or torture him unnecessarily. It is
a false notion that the prisoner subject to intolerable hardships is remedyless.
15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://briefcat.com/casebriefs/33-bird-v-jones-115-eng-rep-688-k-b-1845
https://letstalkaboutthelaw.wordpress.com
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/fal_torts.htm
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/law-of-false-imprisonment-in-
india/#_edn6
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/810491/
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/false+imprisonment
16