A section of public road (Hammersmith Bridge) was closed off to provide a vantage point for a boat race. The plaintiff refused to be excluded, and complained that he had not been allowed to use the public highway, and had therefore been imprisoned.
Held: (majority) ‘there was no imprisonment. To call it so appears to me to confound partial obstruction and disturbance with total obstruction and detention. A prison may have its boundary large or narrow, visible and tangible, or, though real, still in the conception only; it may itself be moveable or fixed: but a boundary it must have; and that boundary the party imprisoned must be prevented from passing; he must be prevented from leaving that place, within the ambit of which the party imprisoning would confine him, except by prison-breach.’
Citations:
[1845] EWHC QB J64, (1845) 7 QB 742, (1845) 115 ER 668, (1845) LJ QB 82, (1845) 5 LT OS 46, (1845) 10 JP 4, (1845) 9 Jur 870
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Syed Mahamad Yusuf-ud-Din v Secretary of State for India 1903
For the tort of false imprisonment to be committed, the deprivation of liberty must be actual, rather than potential: ‘Nothing short of actual detention and complete loss of freedom would support an action for false imprisonment.’ . .
Cited – Jalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC 12-Feb-2020
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.245440