False imprisonment under Tort law

By Mohd. Sahil Khan 10 Minutes Read

Introduction

Imagine being trapped in a small, windowless room. You can hear voices outside, but you have no way to communicate or escape. This terrifying scenario is the essence of false imprisonment. It’s a tort or civil wrong that occurs when someone is intentionally confined against their will. False imprisonment under tort law occurs when an individual’s freedom of movement is unlawfully restricted without consent or legal justification. This tort protects the fundamental right to personal liberty, ensuring that no person is confined or restrained without proper cause.

While false imprisonment may sometimes evoke images of physical confinement, it can also arise from more subtle forms of coercion or authority that prevent a person from leaving. The legal framework surrounding false imprisonment serves as a critical safeguard against unjust limitations on personal autonomy, demanding careful consideration of when restraint is deemed wrongful. Understanding the boundaries of lawful restraint and when such actions cross into the realm of false imprisonment is essential in navigating the protections afforded by tort law.

Essentials of False Imprisonment

1. Total restraint

• The person must be completely prevented from leaving a specific area. This means that they must be unable to move freely in any direction. Partial restraint, such as being prevented from going in a particular direction but still being able to move freely in others, does not constitute false imprisonment.
• In Bird v. Jones[1], a public walkway was wrongfully enclosed. The plaintiff climbed over the fence but was prevented from proceeding further. The court ruled that this did not constitute false imprisonment because the plaintiff was still free to leave the area in another direction.
• However, in Mee v. Cruikshank[2], a prisoner who was detained in a cell after their acquittal was found to have been falsely imprisoned, even though the detention was brief.

2. Intentionality

• The confinement must be intentional. It cannot be accidental or unintentional. For example, if someone accidentally locks a door and traps another person inside, this would not be false imprisonment unless the person intended to confine the other person.

3. Lack of consent

• The person must not have consented to the confinement. If they freely agree to be detained or restricted, it is not false imprisonment. However, if they were coerced or tricked into agreeing, it may still be considered false imprisonment.

4. Knowledge of the plaintiff

• False imprisonment can occur even if the victim is unaware of the restraint at the time. In Herring v. Boyle[3], his schoolmaster detained a schoolboy until his mother paid a disputed fee. The court held that because the boy was unaware of the restraint, it did not constitute false imprisonment.
• However, in Meering v. Graham White Aviation[4], a man was asked to accompany two police officers to a room. Although he agreed to stay after being told it was due to suspicion of theft, he was unaware that the police were instructed to prevent him from leaving. The court ruled that this constituted false imprisonment, even though the claimant was unaware of the restraint at the time.
• These cases illustrate that awareness of restraint is not a necessary element of false imprisonment. As long as the other elements of the tort are present, false imprisonment can occur even if the victim is unaware of their confinement.

5. Unlawful detention

• False imprisonment can occur when a person is detained unlawfully, even after being acquitted of charges. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar[5], the petitioner was acquitted but remained in prison for 14 years. The court rejected the state’s justification for the continued detention and awarded the petitioner compensation.
• Similarly, in Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K.[6], an MLA was unlawfully detained to prevent him from attending an assembly session. The court deemed this a malicious act and awarded exemplary damages.
• Thus, the essence of false imprisonment lies in unlawful detention accompanied by no lawful justification.

Defence of false imprisonment

1. Lawful Authority

The most common defense is that the defendant acted under lawful authority. If the restraint were imposed under a legal right or by an authorized official (e.g., law enforcement acting with a valid arrest warrant), it would not be considered false imprisonment.

2. Probable Cause

In cases where law enforcement or security personnel are involved, the defense may argue that there was probable cause to detain the plaintiff. For example, if a person was reasonably suspected of committing a crime, detaining them temporarily may be justified.

Potential remedies available for false imprisonment

1. Damages

• When a person is wrongfully detained, they can sue for damages. Compensation can be sought not only for the loss of liberty but also for any humiliation or disgrace caused by the confinement.
• The specific amount of damages awarded in false imprisonment cases is often left to the discretion of the jury. However, the primary considerations for damages typically include:
  • Injury to liberty: The loss of freedom and time, considered primarily from a non-pecuniary perspective.
  • Injury to feeling: The indignity, mental suffering, disgrace, and humiliation caused by the confinement.

2. Self-help

• If a person is unlawfully detained, they may use reasonable force to escape rather than waiting for legal intervention. This is known as self-help.

3. Habeas Corpus

• Habeas corpus is a swift legal remedy used to secure the release of a person who is unlawfully detained. It can be issued by either the Supreme Court or a High Court.
• The court orders the detaining authority to produce the detained person and justify the detention. If the detention is found to be unjustified, the court will order the immediate release of the person.
• Even if the person is released before the habeas corpus petition is resolved, the court may still award compensation as a remedy. This was demonstrated in cases like Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar[7] and Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K[8].

Conclusion

False imprisonment remains a vital legal safeguard that protects individuals’ fundamental right to personal liberty. By recognizing the key elements, such as total restraint, intentionality, lack of consent, and unlawful detention, the tort provides a means of redress for those who have been wrongfully confined. Legal defenses like lawful authority and probable cause offer a balance to this protection, ensuring that legitimate detentions are not penalized unjustly. Remedies such as damages, self-help, and habeas corpus provide practical recourse for victims, reinforcing the importance of justice and accountability in cases of false imprisonment. Ultimately, this tort upholds the principle that freedom of movement must not be curtailed without lawful justification, maintaining the rule of law and individual dignity.

[1] [1845] EWHC J64 QB.

[2] 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

[3] (1834) 172 ER 1335.

[4] (1920) 122 LT 44.

[5] AIR 1983 SC 1086.

[6] AIR 1986 SC 494.

[7] AIR 1983 SC 1086.

[8] AIR 1986 SC 494.

Mohd. Sahil Khan