BACKGROUND

• The law of trespass protects the claimants

TRESPASS TO THE PERSON against unlawful interference with their
bodies, property/goods and to their land.
Assault
• Trespass is actionable per se which means that
Battery
the claimants need not prove damage/injury.
False Imprisonment
• It is only sufficient for them to prove that the
Arrest and Restraint
tort has been committed.
Intentional Torts other than Trespass

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 2

TYPES OF TRESPASS
• There are three types of intentional trespass
to the person:
– Assault
– Battery
– False Imprisonment

ASSAULT

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 3 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 4

ASSAULT ASSAULT
It is an act of the defendant which
causes to the plaintiff reasonable Assault was also defined in the case
apprehension of the infliction of a of Collins vWilcock [1984] 3 All
battery on him by the defendant.
ER 374 as ‘an act which causes
another person to apprehend the
Contrary to common belief, infliction of immediate, unlawful
to assault someone is to force on his person’.
cause them fear physical
violence. Once you touch
them, it is battery.

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 5 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 6

1
 ASSAULT ASSAULT
• There are many ways a person
may ASSAULT someone without • There are few essentials in order to establish
touching them; an assault:
– By threatening words
ESSENTIALS
– By shaking his fist in a
threatening manner
– By pointing a gun at them There must be Reasonable fear of Ability to carry out Immediate/ Bodily
intention and some harm the threat movement
act consisting of
some gesture or
preparation to
commit battery

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 7 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 8

ASSAULT ASSAULT
• There must be intention and • CASES: • Reasonable fear of harm
some act consisting of some – Letang v Cooper [1965] 1
gesture or preparation to QB 232 – There must be reasonable apprehension or force
commit battery • If the act was that would be inflicted upon the plaintiff.
– In order for the tort to be intentional, it should be
– Force means some form of violent contact that
committed, the defendant remedied by an action
must intend to do an act. for trespass, if would put a reasonable man to be in reasonable
unintentional, by an fear of such attack.
– For assault, it means that the action for negligence.
defendant must have the – CASES
intention to frighten the
• R v St George [1840] 9 C & P 483
claimant, not that he intended
to use violence or cause harm. • Blake v Barnard [1840] 9 C & P 626

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 9 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 10

ASSAULT ASSAULT
• Ability to carry out the threat • Immediate/ Bodily movement
– Where the plaintiff has reasonable belief that the – It means that there must be a positive act on part
defendant has present ability to affect his purpose, of the defendant, indicating that [Link] would
there is an assault. carry out the threat.
– This also includes a situation in which the defendant – CASE: Innes v Wylie [1844] 1 c & K 257 when a
was intercepted/ prevented by a third party.
policeman stood passively obstructing the passage
– CASES: of the plaintiff, it was held that there was no
• Stephen v Myers [1840] 4 C & P 349
assault.
• Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1985] 2 All ER 1

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 11 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 12

2
 ASSAULT
• Can words constitute an assault?
– For many years, the courts have debated whether
words can amount to an assault.
– More recently, the House of Lords decided that a
silent telephone call can constitute an assault (R v
Constanza [1997] Crim LR 576; R v Ireland and
Burstow [1998] AC 147).
– It is thought that this will now also be the position BATTERY
in civil law, although there has not, as yet, been a
case to confirm this principle.

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 13 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 14

BATTERY BATTERY
• A possible battery may be…
Battery is an intentional
application of physical force – To spit at someone
to another person without – To pour water over them
lawful justification. – To snatch a chair away as
they sit down
– To take a person’s
fingerprints without
observing the statutory
requirements.

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 15 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 16

BATTERY BATTERY
In order to establish battery, there are four
elements:
However, a certain amount a) Mental state of the defendant
of contact in everyday life b) The defendant’s act was under his control
would not amount to battery. c) Contact
For instances; d) Without the plaintiff’s consent
•Jostling in a queue
•Or stepping on someone’s
foot in a crowded place.

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 17 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 18

3
 BATTERY BATTERY
• Mental state • The defendant’s act was under his control
– The defendant must intent to inflict force. – Nash v Sheen (1953)
– CASES: – Gibbons v Pepper [1695] 2 Salk 637
– Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237
– Scott v Shepherd [1773] 2 Wm Bl 892
– Gibbons v Pepper [1695] 2 Salk 637

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 19 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 20

BATTERY BATTERY
• Contact
• Without the plaintiff’s consent
– Any physical contact with the body of the plaintiff
is sufficient to form contacts. – One cannot touch another person without his
– No physical hurt is vital. consent or without any lawful justification
– Thus, the least touching of another in anger or the – CASES:
spitting on a man’s face is battery. • Nash v Sheen
– CASES: • Tiong Pik Hiong v Wong Siew Gieu [1964] MLJ 181
• Cole v Turner [1704] 6 Mod Rep 149
• Collins v Wilcock
• Wilson v Pringle

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 21 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 22

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

False imprisonment is the

infliction of bodily restraint
which is not expressly or
impliedly authorised by the law.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 23 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 24

4
 FALSE IMPRISONMENT
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
SOMEONE CAN BE FALSELY IMPRISONED • There are three requirements:
– Mental state
– Confinement must be complete
– Knowledge of the restraint

In the street In the house or on a roof In a car

In fact, any where where they are

wrongfully deprived of their liberty to go
where they please
Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 25 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 26

FALSE IMPRISONMENT FALSE IMPRISONMENT

• Mental state • Confinement must be complete
– The defendant must intend to do an act which – The plaintiff’s motion must be restrained in every
directly results in the confinement of the plaintiff. single direction.
– CASE: W Elphinstone v Lee Leng San [1938] MLJ – There should be no means of escape.
130 where the Court held that intention of the – CASE: Birds v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742
doer was vital in establishing false imprisonment.
It cannot be done through negligence.

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 27 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 28

FALSE IMPRISONMENT
• Knowledge of the restraint
– A question here is whether the plaintiff needs to
be aware that he is being falsely imprisoned or
unlawfully restrained?
– CASES:
• Herring v Boyle [1834] 1 Cr M & R 377
• Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd [1919] 122 ARREST AND RESTRAINT &
LT 44
• Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 2 All ER 521 INTENTIONAL TORTS

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 29 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 30

5
 ARREST AND RESTRAINT BY THE INTENTIONAL TORTS OTHER THAN
AUTHORITIES TRESPASS TO THE PERSON
• Article 5 of the Federal Constitution • Liability under the principle in Wilkinson v
• Provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code – Dowton [1987] 2 QB 57
Sections 23 - 31 • Act of the defendant must be intentional
• Section 2 of the Police Act 1967 • There must be actual harm to the plaintiff

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 31 Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 32

END OF TRESPASS TO THE PERSON

Dr. Noraiza Abdul Rahman 33