Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
False imprisonment
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===== Lawful imprisonment ===== ====== Performance of a contract ====== This can be looked at as consent, therefore, the imprisonment is not unlawful nor false imprisonment, for example, when flying, you consent to be on the plane for that duration of time through contract. The courts have said it is not unlawful to refuse to open a train door when the train is on a bridge, even though the passenger is thereby restricted inside the train.<ref name=":1" /> Likewise, a master of a ship,<ref>''Hook v Cunard Steamship Co Ltd'' [1953] 1 All ER 1021</ref> or the pilot of a plane<ref>Civil Aviation Act 1982 s. 94</ref> can detain people during a voyage or flight when they have a reasonable cause or grounds to believe it necessary for the safety of their other passengers. Suddenly saying "I would like to leave now" is dangerous and thus, they have no reason to let you leave, moreover, you are contractually obligated to remain onboard. Therefore, this would not constitute false imprisonment. Additionally, when a claimant is following a work contract the employer may not be held for false imprisonment for not allowing them to leave early due to a breach of contract and potential losses that could result from them leaving. In the case of ''Herd v Weardale Steel Coal''<ref>''Herd v Weardale Steel Coal & Coke Co Ltd'' [1915] AC 67</ref> where the claimant was in a mine, they were working and they wanted to leave the mine. The employer refused to let them leave at that time and the court held that the employer was under no obligation to allow them to do so. ====== Police ====== Under [[English law]], police have the right to arrest under a warrant issued by a magistrate,<ref name=":1" /> and following conditions set out in [[Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984|PACE]] Code G. Or without a warrant, police may make an arrest pursuant to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984:<ref name=PACE>Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984</ref> 'anyone who is about to commit, is committing or has committed an offence or is so suspected on reasonable grounds may be arrested.' Also, arrest may be lawful if the police have reason to believe that the person arrested poses an imminent risk of harm to themselves or others. Private citizens can also make an arrest for crimes being committed/that have been committed but only in relation to indictable offences ('citizen's arrest').<ref name=":1" /> When a prisoner is lawfully held, it is not false imprisonment just because the conditions are unsanitary such as in the case of ''R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison'',<ref>''R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison ex p Hague'' [1992] 1 AC 58 (HL)</ref> 'although this may instead be found to be [[negligence]] or the tort of misfeasance in a public office.'<ref name=":1" /> Another example would again be the case of ''Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis'' [2007],<ref name=":2" /> a case concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the [[International Workers' Day#United Kingdom|May Day riots of 2001]] in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "[[kettling]]", held a large crowd in [[Oxford Circus]] without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London [[Metropolitan Police]] and that their detention was in breach of the [[European Convention of Human Rights]].<ref name="bbc1">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1956323.stm |title=Police sued over May Day protest |date=2002-04-28|work=BBC News|access-date=2009-04-16 |location=London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040509095234/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1956323.stm|archive-date=2004-05-09 |url-status=live}}</ref> The pair lost their court action in 2005,<ref name="bbc2">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4374853.stm|title=Pair lose protest damages claim|work=BBC News|access-date=2017-11-06|date=2005-03-23|location=London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170629115905/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4374853.stm|archive-date=2017-06-29|url-status=live}}</ref> when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007.<ref name="bbc2" /> A ruling by the [[House of Lords]] declared that 'even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.'<ref name="lords2009">{{cite web|title=Judgments - Austin (FC) (Appellant) & another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent) (2009)|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090128/austin-1.htm|website=www.parliament.uk|publisher=U.K. Parliament|access-date=6 November 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107024959/https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090128/austin-1.htm|archive-date=2017-11-07|url-status=live}}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)