Bird v Jones
False imprisonment requires a complete restraint of the claimant's freedom of movement, so blocking only one way of going is not enough.
Facts
Part of a public footway on Hammersmith Bridge was fenced off by the defendants for spectators to watch a boat race, and they charged for admission. Mr Bird climbed into the enclosure and tried to walk along the footway in the usual direction. The defendants placed two police officers to stop him going that way, but told him that he could go back the way he had come and cross the bridge by the other footway. He refused to do so and stayed where he was for about half an hour. He sued for false imprisonment.
Legal principle
The court held, by a majority, that there was no false imprisonment. Coleridge J said that imprisonment is a total restraint of the liberty of the person, for however short a time, and not a partial obstruction of his will, whatever inconvenience it may bring on him. Mr Bird had been free to go back and take another route, so there was no total restraint. Lord Denman CJ dissented.
Related cases on trespass to the person
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 AC 564
- Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172
- F v West Berkshire Health Authority (Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation)) [1990] 2 AC 1
- Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co Ltd [1915] AC 67
- Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232
- Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1919) 122 LT 44
- Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692
- R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12, [2012] 1 AC 245
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
