Hi, welcome back to the Australian Law Student Law Infor 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 Law Infor 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
theauslawstudent.com. Okay, trespass to the person. It shares similarities with battery and
assault. Like its counterparts, 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, actively encouraging the plaintiff to do so is not a lawful act.
Others to carry out the false imprisonment is also sufficient. A classic case which illustrates
this is Dixon and Water, where a shop manager falsely accused the plaintiff of shoplifting
and was found liable for promoting 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 Burden
Jones, the plaintiff's claim failed because they could have turned around and exited using a
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, where the 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 Simses and Martin, the plaintiff, mistaken as an individual with a warrant,
was taken to a police station and was taken to a police station.
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 wharf's entrance, could not be said to have been held against his will.
As we wrap up this episode, I'd like to thank you all for watching. If you enjoyed this video,
it's clear that this talk 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 Student's Law in 4 podcast.
As always, if you have any suggestions, please email us at team at theoslawstudent.com
or leave a comment in your review on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.