Torts affecting the person

Law of Tort – 4.3 Trespass to the Person (Assault, Battery & False Imprisonment)

1. How 4.3 Fits into the Whole Tort Syllabus

Section 4.3 of the Cambridge International AS & A Level Law (9084) syllabus covers the three intentional torts that constitute trespass to the person. These torts protect personal rights – bodily integrity, freedom from fear of unlawful force and liberty of movement – and illustrate key legal concepts:

• Rights & responsibilities: the right not to be harmed and the duty to respect that right.
• Freedom & power limits: the balance between personal freedom and lawful authority (e.g., police powers).
• Liability & justice: when an intentional interference gives rise to liability and what remedy restores the claimant.
• Effectiveness of the law: whether the rules achieve a fair balance between victims and defendants.

These torts are distinct from negligence (4.1) and from defamation (outside the syllabus). They are actionable per se – the claimant need not prove actual loss, although damages may be awarded for injury, pain, humiliation or loss of liberty.

2. Core Concepts Common to All Three Tortious Acts

• Intentional tort – the defendant must act deliberately (or, where the statute requires, recklessly) to interfere with the claimant’s personal rights.
• Actionable per se – the tort is complete upon the wrongful act; proof of loss is not required to establish liability, though it may affect the quantum of damages.
• Defences (see §4) – consent, self‑defence, necessity, lawful authority, volenti non fit injuria, illegality, etc.
• Remedies (see §5) – primarily damages (general, special, exemplary) and, where appropriate, injunctions or restitutionary orders.

3. Detailed Elements of Each Tort

3.1 Assault (Syllabus 4.3.1)

Assault is an intentional act that creates a reasonable apprehension in the claimant of immediate, unlawful personal violence.

• Actus reus
  • Any overt act (including a gesture, movement, or even silence when it is part of a threatening context) that would cause a reasonable person to fear immediate unlawful force.
  • Physical contact is not required.
  • Purely verbal threats are insufficient unless accompanied by an overt act – Read v Coker (1843) held that words alone do not satisfy the actus reus.
• Mens rea
  • Intent to cause the apprehension, or recklessness as to whether such apprehension is caused.
• Reasonable‑person test
  • The claimant’s fear must be judged by the standard of a reasonable person in the claimant’s position.
• Actionable per se
  • Liability arises even if no physical injury occurs.

Illustrative example: A police officer points a loaded pistol at a passer‑by and says, “Don’t move or I’ll shoot.” The passer‑by’s fear of immediate unlawful force satisfies the elements of assault.

Policy note: Criminalising assault protects personal safety and public order while preserving freedom of expression; the law therefore requires a reasonable‑person test to prevent frivolous claims based on mere words.

3.2 Battery (Syllabus 4.3.2)

Battery is the intentional, direct or indirect, application of unlawful force to another’s body.

• Force
  • Any physical contact, however slight, that is not merely incidental (e.g., a gentle tap, a push, a punch).
  • Force may be indirect – e.g., causing a falling object to strike the claimant.
• Hostility (unlawfulness)
  • The contact must be unlawful – i.e., without a lawful excuse.
  • Lack of consent is the most common ground for hostility; consent may be express, implied (e.g., sports, medical treatment) or statutory.
  • Collins v Wilcock (1984) confirmed that any touching which is not consented to and is not a trivial, socially acceptable contact is unlawful.
• Intent
  • Intention to apply the force, or recklessness as to whether the force will be applied.
• Actionable per se
  • Liability arises irrespective of actual injury; damages for pain, humiliation or loss of enjoyment may still be awarded.
• Vicarious liability (outline only)
  • A principal (employer) may be held liable for the battery committed by an employee acting in the course of employment.

Illustrative example: A friend playfully slaps another on the shoulder without permission. The contact is intentional, unlawful (no consent), and therefore amounts to battery.

3.3 False Imprisonment (Syllabus 4.3.3)

False imprisonment is the intentional and unlawful total restraint of another’s freedom of movement.

• Total restraint
  • The claimant must be completely confined; a mere restriction that leaves a reasonable avenue of escape is insufficient.
  • ‘Total’ means that the claimant cannot lawfully leave the situation without the defendant’s permission – see Bird v Jones (1845).
• Knowledge of restraint
  • The claimant must be aware of the confinement at the time it occurs, or suffer a physical consequence that makes the restraint evident (e.g., being locked in a room).
• Unlawfulness
  • No legal authority (e.g., police power, lawful arrest, statutory detention) must exist.
  • Lawful authority is a complete defence – see R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No 2) [2001] 2 AC 19.
• Intent
  • The defendant must intend to restrain the claimant, or act recklessly as to whether restraint occurs.
• Actionable per se
  • Liability attaches even if the claimant suffers no physical injury; damages may compensate for loss of liberty, humiliation and any consequential loss.

Illustrative example: A shopkeeper falsely accuses a customer of shop‑lifting and locks the customer in a backroom for an hour. The total restraint and lack of lawful authority give rise to false imprisonment.

4. Defences Relevant to 4.3 Tortious Acts (Syllabus 4.4.1)

5. Remedies for Assault, Battery & False Imprisonment (Syllabus 4.4.2)

• Damages
  • General damages – for pain, suffering, humiliation and loss of liberty.
  • Special damages – for quantifiable financial loss (e.g., loss of earnings due to false imprisonment).
  • Exemplary (punitive) damages – where the defendant’s conduct is particularly egregious (e.g., malicious assault).
• Injunctions
  • Rare in intentional torts, but may be granted to prevent a continuing or future unlawful act (e.g., restraining order against a stalker).
• Restitutionary orders
  • Occasionally ordered where the defendant has obtained a benefit from the unlawful restraint (e.g., keeping the claimant’s property during false imprisonment).

6. Leading Case Law (Brief Summaries)

7. Examination Tips – Applying the 4.3 Syllabus

• Read the question carefully – identify whether the scenario involves assault, battery, false imprisonment, or a combination.
• Use IRAC for each tort – Issue, Rule (elements), Application, Conclusion.
• Remember “actionable per se” – you do not need to prove loss unless the question asks for damages.
• Assault: distinguish act from words – unless there is an overt act, words alone will not satisfy the actus reus (Read v Coker).
• Battery: check consent and hostility – consider express, implied (sports, medical) or statutory consent; if absent, the contact is unlawful.
• False imprisonment: test total restraint – ask whether any reasonable avenue of escape existed (Bird v Jones).
• Analyse defences early – consent, self‑defence, necessity, lawful authority, illegality.
• Link to remedies – once liability is established, discuss appropriate damages (general, special, exemplary) and whether an injunction or restitutionary order is suitable.
• Policy evaluation – where required, comment on whether the law strikes a fair balance between personal liberty and societal interests (e.g., police powers vs. false imprisonment).

8. Decision‑Tree Flowchart for Distinguishing Assault, Battery & False Imprisonment

9. Summary Table – Elements & Key Cases