Depriving a claimant of their freedom of

movement, without consent or legal

justification.
Now for the hardcore indepth review...
False imprisonment is commitedwhen a defendant imposed a total restraint on the liberty and free
movement of the claimant. Modern case scenarios commonly involve wrongful arrests and
detention by police and store detectives.

The restraint must be total

False imprisonment requires a total restraint, meaning the claimant cannot escape in any
direction. Therefore, by leaving a safe exit open for the claimant to leave, the defendant is not
liable.

Bird v Jones - The defendants cordened off a section of the Hammersmith in London for paying
spectators to view a regatta, a type of boat race. The claimant, a jogger, wanted to cross the
footpath and climbed into the area without paying. Stewards stooped him proceeding further, yet
he was allowed to go back the way he came, and cross via another section. He refused, and stayed
there for 30 minutes. The defendant was not liable as the restraint was not total.

False imprisonment also does not occur in situations where the claimant has agreed to a contract,
with a reasonable condition for being allowed to leave.

Robinson v Balmain Ferry (Source Case) - The claimant wanted to cross on a ferry. The charge
was 'a penny on, a penny off' (It made it easier to divide the cash for both landowners of the ferry
dock, one at each end). He just missed the ferry, so changed his mind about crossing and tried
leaving from the way he came. He was asked to pay the agreed penny off, but refused stating the
fact he did not cross. It was held that as he had agreed beforehand to pay a penny to get off the
premises, it was a reasonable condition to leave. The defendant was not liable.

Herd v Weardale (Source Case) - Several miners went down a mine lift to work. Close to the
start of their shift they believed the work they were being asked to do was unsafe, and asked for
the lift to come back down in order to pick them up. Weardale Steel, their employer, refused to
send a lift until their contracted shifts had finished, which was 5 hours later (In the end they sent
the lift 20 minutes later). The miners were originally sued in the County Court for breach of their
employment contract, which they appealed stating false imprisonment. Weardale was not liable,
based on the grounds that the claimants had willingly entered the pit, and that they were only
obliged to take them to the surface at the end of their shift.

It is however an offence to detain a person who has only commited a civil offence. Criminal cases
involving stealing which the type of detention is illegal are discussed on the defences page.

Sunbolf v Alford - It was false imprisonment when a landlord wrongly detained his lodger for not
paying rent.

Area of confinement.
The area of confinement depends on the circumstances of the case, however the basic rule is that
the defendant fixes the barriers and for the claimant to escape would require personal injury or be
otherwise unreasonable. If there is reasonable means of escape, yet it would involve breaching
someone elses civil rights is it acceptable?

Wright v Wilson - In this case the claimant could escape, yet in doing so he trespassed on
someone elses land. The court held this was acceptable in the circumstances and was a sufficient
enough reason to prevent liability.

The barriers in the area of confinement need not be physical for false imprisonment to arise.
Harnett v Bond - The claimant was a mental patient from an instiution, who went to the doctor in
order to be released. The doctor told him he could leave, yet the defendant told him he must stay
for a little while longer. This shows even verbal barriers can count as false imprisonment.

This also leads to the conclusion that if a scenario arised where a defendant placed a gun to the
claimants head and told him not to move, it would be false imprisonment. It also illustrates the
beautiful ways in which areas of trespass to the person come together, as it would be assault too,
and may lead to battery.

State of mind of both parties.

It is not required that the claimant knows he is being restrained at the time.

Meering v Graham White Aviation - The claimant was asked to go to a room with two work
policemen from the Avation company. He asked why and stated he would leave if not told. When
told it was on suspision of theft he agreed to stay, and the works police stood outside until the
metropolitan police arrived. Unkown to him they were asked to prevent him leaving. It was held
that an act which fulfils the requirement for a false imprisonment, even if the claimant is unaware
at the time, still counts. Meering was entitled to damages.

The defedant must intend to restrict the claimants movements, mere negligence is insufficient.

Sayers v Harlow Council - The claimant became locked in a lavatory due to a lock breaking on
the door. This was not false imprisonment as there was no intent, and it is common knowledge
that if you go into a public toilet you will get stuck/ catch herpes/ die of general horror.