It occurs when a person is unlawfully restrained, whether by arrest or confinement, or prevented from leaving any place. It is an act of the D which directly and intentionally (or possibly negligently) causes the confinement of the claimant within an area delimited by the D. (street on torts)
False imprisonment is actionable per se and must result from the direct act of the defendant.
False imprisonment is any direct and intentional act of defendant, causing a total restraint on the freedom of movement of the plaintiff, with limits sets by the defendant, without the plaintiff’s consent or any lawful justification. In Moris A. Sasawata v Mathias Malieko, the respondent successfully sued the plaintiff for damages for F.I. The plaintiff appealed against the Order of the trial by the trial court ordering him to pay damages to the respondent on the ground that he was not responsible for the arrest and subsequent imprisonment of the respondent. It was held that, To constitute FI there must be restraint of the plaintiff’s liberty; The actual perpetrator of an act which in law turns out to be a tort is personally liable for damages; In a suit for FI the plaintiff can recover damages for loss of reputation; It is the duty of the court in Civil proceedings to draw the attention of the parties to some ambiguity, factual error or omission in their pleadings. In Mipawa v R, the plaintiff was a teacher in Mwanza. There was an unexplained death and the plaintiff was arrested in connection with it. He was detained and released several times. He was in custody for a total of 16 months. After his complete discharge he sued the government for FI. Mapigano J. held that the government was liable. Condemning the police behavior in Mwanza the judge said:
“This is a textbook example of how the powerful can, with total scorn for the Civil Rights and with singleness of purpose cause the machinery of criminal law to operate against a completely innocent subject.” The arrests of the plaintiff and the detentions wee without reasonable and probable cause and they were in fact activated by MALICE.
INGRIDIENTS OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT
KNOWLEDGE OF CLAIMANT
False imprisonment can also occur even if the victim is unaware of it at the time. According to Lord Atkin, a person can be imprisoned while he is asleep, in a state of drunkenness, while unconscious or while he is a lunatic. In the case of Merring V Grahame-white aviation co ltd, the claimant was brought to his employer’s office to be interviewed in connection with theft. Two guards had been stationed outside to prevent him from leaving and when the claimant found out, he brought an action for false imprisonment. Lord Atkin said,” it appears to me that a person could be imprisoned without his knowledge…...it is quite unnecessary to go on to show that in fact the man knew that he was imprisoned” the defendants were therefore held liable for false imprisonment. However, if a person is unaware that he has been falsely imprisoned and has suffered no harm, he can normally expect to cover not more than nominal damages.
THE CHARACTER OF THE D’s ACT
There must be total or complete restraint such that there is no means of escape, if there is reasonable means of escape, the restraint cannot amount to false imprisonment. False imprisonment can also occur even if the victim is not aware at the time.
False imprisonment need not be in a prison, however, how large the area of confinement can be largely depending on the circumstances so that the boundaries of the area of confinement must have been fixed by the defendant as stated by Lord Coleridge J in Bird v. Jones; ‘Some confusion seems……… to arise from confounding imprisonment of the body with mere loss of freedom…. Imprisonment…. Includes the notion of restraint within some limits defined by a will or power exterior to our own.’
Lord Denning however gave a dissenting judgment; ‘As long as I am prevented from doing what I have a right to do, of what importance is it that I am permitted to do something else? … If I am locked in a room, I am not imprisoned because I might affect my escape through a window, or because I might find an exit dangerous or inconvenient to myself, as by wading through water?’
If the means of escape causes a risk of personal injury or if it is otherwise unreasonable for the victim to escape, then liability for false imprisonment arises. However, the barriers to the means of escape need not be physical e.g. in a case where a commissioner in Lunacy wrongfully used his authority to dissuade the claimant from leaving his office, he was liable for false imprisonment. Once a restraint has been affected by an assertion of authority then it is enough for liability for false imprisonment to emerge e.g. restraint on movement in the street by a threat of force that intimidates a person to compliance without touching the victim is false imprisonment. (street on torts pg 249) once there is lawful detention then changes in the conditions of his detention will not render the detention unlawful e.g. in the case of prisoners being detained in unsanitary cells, this cannot be termed as false imprisonment.
DEFENDANT’S STATE OF MIND
In this tort, the D must intend to do an act which will substantially affect the confinement. However, there is no need to prove malice because even where the D confines the claimant in good faith, he is still liable for the intentional confinement of the claimant. In R v. Governor of Brockhill Prison, in this case a prisoner governor who calculated the claimant’s day of release in accordance with the law as understood at the time of her conviction was held liable when a subsequent change of the law meant that the prisoner should have been released 59 days earlier. An honest mistake whether negligently made or not as to the right to continue detention does not excuse a trespass to the person. In a similar case Quinland v. Governor of Swalesdale Prison, there was a judicial error that increased the sentence by three months longer than it ought to have been causing the claimant to be detained longer than it should have been. The C.A. stated that since the prisoner was unduly detained by virtue of a court order, there would be no remedy other than the correction of the arithmetical error that had been made in adding together the various periods of confinement attributable to the various offences of which the claimant had been convicted.
Negligence should be enough to result to liability for false imprisonment for example where a person locks a door while being negligently unaware of the presence of somebody in the room.
DEFENCES
LAWFUL ARREST
Any lawful arrest made in accordance with the law cannot amount to false imprisonment. Any private citizen making citizen’s arrest should be wary as a private citizen has protection if an arrestable offence has actually been or is being committed by the person arrested and the police have been involved. A police officer does not lose the protection even where the arrest is mistaken provided that it was reasonable.
DETENTION FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES
The lawful detention of persons suffering from mental disorder is provided for in the Mental Health Act 1983, but must be in accordance with the provisions and if the contrary happens then there is false imprisonment. In cases where a person is ill and in need of treatment but the illness does not meet the criteria for compulsory detention.
Difference between Malicious Prosecution and False Imprisonment
An action of both the Torts of Trespass and False Imprisonment will not lie, unless the Defendant intentionally caused the Plaintiff's bodily restraint. The Tort of Malicious Prosecution must be distinguished from the Tort of False Imprisonment.
The Tort of False Imprisonment arising out of an improper arrest of a suspected criminal bears a resemblance to the Tort of Malicious Prosecution, which consists in the abuse of legal process by maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause instituting a groundless criminal prosecution.
A person who brings about an arrest by merely setting in motion the formal process of law, as by making a complaint before a justice of the peace or applying for a warrant, is not liable for the Tort of False imprisonment because: He will be liable, if at all, only for the misuse of legal process by procuring an arrest for an improper purpose for which the appropriate remedy is an action for Malicious Prosecution.
