DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

LAW OF TORTS
Project
FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms. Ankita Yadav Aakash Raj Chauhan

Asst. Professor 180101002

RMLNLU II Semester
Table of Contents
 Acknowledgement..........................................................................................2
 Objectives......................................................................................................3
 Research Methodology...................................................................................3
 Introduction....................................................................................................4
 Essential elements..........................................................................................5
 Defences.........................................................................................................8
 Remedies......................................................................................................10
 Cases Pertaining to False Imprisonment......................................................13
 Conclusion....................................................................................................15
 Bibliography.................................................................................................16

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Above all else, I would like to thank the Almighty for his blessings upon us.

Although, I have worked hard for this project, it would not have been possible
without the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend my
sincere thanks to all of them.

I am highly obligated to Ms. Ankita Yadav for her direction and continuous
observation as well as for providing essential information regarding the project
& also for her support in completing the project.

I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to all those people who
gave me attention and their invaluable time.

My thanks and appreciations also go to my friend and classmates in developing

the project and people who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.

2
OBJECTIVES
To study about False imprisonment, study about some cases based on this,
enquire the essential elements ofit, see defences available for it and look into the
remedies that a person has for it.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Doctrinal Research: In this we go through literature available on the subject
matter and thereon propound conclusion based on our study.

3
INTRODUCTION
False imprisonment is restraining a person in a bounded area without
justification or consent. False imprisonment is a common law misdemeanor and
a tort. It applies to private as well as governmental detention.

For imprisonment, it is not necessary that the person should be put behind bars,
but he should be confined in such an area from where there are no possible
ways of escape except the will of the person who is confining the person within
that area. It is not the degree of the imprisonment that matters but it is the
absence of lawful authority to justify unlawful confinement that is of relevance.
The internment and non-movement of any chattel, i.e., goods is also considered
to be a part of the concept of false imprisonment.

False arrest is the arrest of the individual by the police officer or private person
without lawful authority. False arrest and false imprisonment are virtually
indistinguishable except in their terminology and have been held by the courts
as a single tort. False imprisonment is an intentional tort, like those of assault,
battery, unlawful harassment and invasion of privacy. These are termed as torts
of trespass to a person.

Depriving someone of freedom of movement by holding a person in a confined

space or by physical restraint includingbeing locked in a car, driven about witho
ut opportunity to get out, being tied to chair, or locked in a closet. It may be the
followup to a false arrest (holding someone in the office of a department store, f
or example), but more often it resembles kidnapping with no belief or claim of a
legal right to hold the person. Therefore, false imprisonment is often a crime, a
nd ifproved is almost always the basis of a lawsuit for damages.

4
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
 Period of Confinement: However short the period of unlawful
detention an action for false imprisonment will always lie ,provided that
the other requirements of the torts are satisfied. Confinement for a very
short period, say fifteen minutes is sufficient to create liability of false
imprisonment. The period of confinement is generally of no relevance
except in the estimation of damages.

The lengthy confinement does not necessarily mean that a compensable

false imprisonment has occurred. An otherwise lawful detention may
become unlawful if the detention is prolonged for an unreasonable period
of time.

 The Intention Factor: Normally this tort of false imprisonment must

be intentional. A person is not liable for false imprisonment unless his or
her act is done for the purpose of imposing a confinement or with
knowledge that such a confinement, to a substantial certainty will result
from it. The necessary intent for the purposes of false imprisonment is
the intent to confine. In order to demonstrate the necessary element of
intent, the defendant must only intend to accomplish the act that causes
the confinement, they need not contend that the confinement was
unlawful, the defendants actual motives are immaterial. Malice is
irrelevant to this tort. It is ordinarily for the jury to determine from the
evidence , as a question of fact, the intention of the defendant in an
action for false imprisonment. Even negligent acts causes this tort of
false imprisonment for example if a person locks someone inside a room
without unaware of the fact that there is someone in the room than he is
held liable for false imprisonment.

5
 Knowledge of The Plaintiff: There is no requirement that the
plaintiff alleging false imprisonment was aware of the restraint on his
freedom at the time of his confinement. This can be illustrated by ctitng
the example of a case. In Meering v. Grahame White Aviation Co a man
persuade by works police to remain in his office, but unaware that had he
tried to leave he would be prevented from doing so, successfully
recovered damages for false imprisonment. In Herring v Boyle an action
brought by a schoolboy against his headmaster for being detained in the
school during the holidays because his parents had not paid the fees
failed. Actual knowledge of detention is not a necessary element of this
tort . Proof of a total restraint of liberty is sufficient.

What is the position if the plaintiff is in a particular room or building and

defendant decides that if plaintiff attempts to leave the room or building
he will prevent plaintiff from doing so but because plaintiff has not yet
attempted to leave the room or building in question, defendant has not
actually done anything yet to prevent plaintiff from leaving the room or
building? Has defendant imprisoned plaintiff? One would think that the
answer would be no whether or not defendant has imprisoned plaintiff
cannot merely rely on the defendants mental state. The House of Lords
confirmed this decision in the case of R v Bournewood Community and
Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L.That case concerned one L who
had a history of health problems. Having spent 30 years in Bournewood
hospital , L was discharged into the community in the year 1994 and
looked after by paid careers. However, in 1997 after an incident in a day
care center, L became particularly agitated and voluntarily agreed to go
back to hospital. Once there, he was kept in an unlocked ward and was
not restrained from leaving. However the staff there decided that if he
attempted to leave than they will section him under the Mental Health
Act 1983 and prevent him from leaving. L did in fact attempted to leave
and was sectioned under the act. When L was eventually discharged he
sued the hospital, claiming that his employees had falsely imprisoned
him in the period his entering the hospital and his being sectioned. The
Court dismissed the claim and held that the fact that during that time they
were prepared to section L if he attempted to leave did not mean they had
imprisoned him.

6
 Place of Confinement: The term false imprisonment is misleading in
that it does not necessarily means confinement to a jail or prison. To
constitute the wrong in imprisonment there needs to be no actual
imprisonment in the ordinary sense- i.e. incarceration. Any confinement
in the ordinary sense whether be it prison or any place used temporarily
for the purpose of confinement constitutes false imprisonment. It is
enough that the plaintiff in any manner has been completely derived of
his liberty, for any time, however short. Thus an action of false
imprisonment may lie due to confinement in a mental institution,
hospital, nursing home or juvenile home.
To constitute imprisonment the deprivation of the plaintiffs liberty
should be complete that is there must be on every side of him a boundary
drawn beyond which he cannot pass. The boundary may be quite narrow
or broad but it must be complete and definite. It is not imprisonment to
prevent the plaintiff from going in certain directions if he is free to go in
other directions and thus there will be no action for false imprisonment.

If a person has induced another to put himself or herself in a place which

is impossible to leave without such persons assistance, by words or by
other conduct, the refusal to give such assistance, of for the purpose of
detaining the other is a sufficient act of confinement to make such person
liable.

 Use Of Force Or Its Reasonable Apprehension: Any exercise

of force, or express or implied threat of force, whereby another person is
deprived of his or her liberty or is compelled to go in a direction in which
he doesn't wish to go is false imprisonment. Thus, though the
confinement or restraint necessary to create liability for false
imprisonment may be imposed by compulsive physical force, the actual
us of physical force is not necessary. The essential thing is the restraint
of the person that can be done by threats or by using actual force as well
or by inducing threat by using words that cause a suitable apprehension
of the use of a force in the mind of the person. If the words or conduct
are such as to induce reasonable apprehension of force such that the
person is effectually restrained, than it will constitute false imprisonment.
7
 DEFENCES
To avoid liability in false imprisonment the defendant must either show that he
did not imprison the plaintiff or that he had reasonable grounds of to justify his
imprisonment. The presence of probable cause for imprisonment is not a
defence unless it constitutes reasonable grounds for acting in defense of
property or in making an arrest without warrant. An offer to release the plaintiff
for temporary period time has no effect on the action of false imprisonment.

Irrespective of the above fact, there can be certain other factors due to which the
defendant can be exonerated from liability or the damages can be mitigated. If a
person acting under a statute arrests a person, with the power that has been
vested in him by the statute, than that person cannot be held liable. For example
many state legislatures in USA have enacted statutes giving the merchants a
qualified privilege to detain suspected shoplifters.

1. Consent: Although it has been denied that one may consent to unlawful
restraint, on the ground that liberty is an inalienable prerogative of which
no one may divest himself, it is frequently held that the consent of the
plaintiff to acts which constitute an imprisonment bars the right of
recovery thereof. Consent must be free from duress , coercion ,fraud or
mistake. Consent can also be implied in certain circumstances.

The maxim volenti non fit injuria applies to the case of false
imprisonment. The restraint must be involuntary. There is no
imprisonment if the plaintiff agrees of his or free choice, to act in
conformity with the request of the defendant. One who enters the premises
of others upon terms that involve some restrictions on his liberty cannot
complain of false imprisonment.

8
2. Probable Cause: It is a complete defence to actions for false
imprisonment, and false arrest specially. When the probable cause is
established than the action of false imprisonment and false arrest fails
completely. It is said that the test for probable cause for imprisonment and
arrest is an objective one, based not on the individual’s actual guilt, but
upon the information of credible facts or information that would induce a
person of ordinary caution to believe the accused to be guilty. A defendant
who in a false imprisonment or false arrest action has established the
probable cause for the alleged tort than he has no additional obligation to
prove. Even malicious motives will not support a claim if probable cause
is found to exist.

On the other hand, some courts have expressly implied that the plaintiff is
required in a false arrest action to show a lack of probable cause for the
detention, or indicated that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that lack
of probable cause by affirmative evidence.

One of the probable causes can be necessity. If defendant has imprisoned

plaintiff but it was necessary for defendant to imprison plaintiff in the way
he did than defendant had a lawful justification or excuse of imprisoning
plaintiff, the way he did. Suppose defendant locked plaintiff in a room
fearing that if he didn’t, than plaintiff will assault a third person. In such a
case if can establish that it was necessary on his part to perform such an
action than he can’t be held liable for false imprisonment.

3. Contributory Negligence: While there is some authority to the effect

that the negligence of the plaintiff may bar recovery for the tort of false
imprisonment, there is some authority that the negligence of the plaintiff
in not a defence for false imprisonment. In any event the plaintiffs
contributory negligence can be proved for the mitigation of damages but it
is not taken as an absolute defence for false imprisonment.

9
REMEDIES
1. Action for Damages:Damages in false imprisonment are those which
flow from the detention. The damages for false arrest are to be measured
only to the time of arraignment or indictment. There is no legal rule for the
assessment of the damages and this is entirely left on the court. The
grounds for damages include injury to the person and physical suffering,
mental suffering and humiliation, loss of time earnings and interruption of
businesses, medical expenses incurred, injury to the reputation etc.

The arresting officer is liable for damages incase of false arrest up to the
time the officer produced the person before the judicial officer and is not
liable thereafter. The damages for false arrest are to be measured only to the
time of arraignment or indictment. Where however there exists continuity
between an unlawful arrest and subsequent discharge of the accused as to
constitute one continuous unlawful act, the defendant is liable for all the
consequences resultant from false arrest.

The scope of damages recoverable goes beyond those that are already
suffered. The general rule is that, in an action for personal torts future
damages to an injured person are an element of recovery, where there is
reasonable certainty that they will result in false imprisonment.

2. Nominal and Compensatory Damages:The general rule in personal

tort action is that the plaintiff is entitled to recover such a sum that shall be
fair and just, in the absence of circumstances justifying an award for
exemplary damages. Mere unlawful detention constitutes the basis for the
recovery of at least nominal damages, but an award of only nominal
damages may be insufficient and flawed where the facts proved indicate a
right to greater damages. It has been held now that the person can now be
imprisoned without knowing it. In such cases the plaintiff might obtain
only nominal damages. Mental suffering including fright, shame and
mortification from the indignity and disgrace, consequent upon an illegal

10
 detention, is usually considered an injury for which compensation may be
made in an action for false arrest or false imprisonment. The fact that no
physical injury was inflicted on one complaining of false imprisonment has
been held to be an insufficient ground for denying the recovery of
reasonable compensation for mental suffering.

3. Punitive, Exemplary and Aggravated Damages:If an

imprisonment is affected recklessly, oppressively, insultingly and
maliciously with a design to oppress and injure, the court may award
exemplary or punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded in cases
where the defendants conduct is recklessly indifferent to the rights of others
or in intentional or wanton violation of those rights, and such damages are
awarded to give a deterrent. In some circumstances exemplary damages
may be provided as when there is abuse of power by the state. Aggravated
damages may be awarded in a proper case as when the imprisonment in
itself of a nominal character is offensive or hurt fell to the plaintiff’s
feelings. Courts have often held that malice will warrant an award for
exemplary or punitive damages in an action for false imprisonment or false
arrest. Punitive or exemplary damages will not be allowed where the false
imprisonment was brought about in good faith, without malice in fact or in
law and where there is no element of wantonness or oppression.

Even in those jurisdictions where an action of exemplary damages is

generally permitted such damages will not be allowed in the absence of
actual damage sustained by plaintiff. However where actual damage has
been shown than the extent is material for determining whether punitive
damages are allowed. Punitive damages have also been allowed where an
arrest was made with the knowledge that it was in violation of the court
order.

11
4. Writ of Habeas Corpus: This writ is considered to be a golden remedy
by the English Law. The Supreme Court of India and High Court of states
issue this writ under article 32 and 226 respectively. This is concerned with
the cases of false arrest or for prolonged detention by police officers. Here
the person can apply for the writ that will command him to come to the
court on a certain day, stating the day and the cause of his detention and
than abiding by the decision made by the court. The decision will be that
either the prisoner will be released or if the detention is proved than he will
be speedily produced before the court for a trial.

The writ of habeas corpus is effective means of immediate release from

unlawful detention, whether in prison or private custody. Physical
confinement is not necessary to constitute detention , control and custody
are sufficient. Thus a child is forcibly kept apart from his parents, if a man
is wrongfully kept in confinement as a lunatic- if in short, any man, woman
or child is or is asserted on apparently good grounds to be deprived of
liberty, the court will always issue a writ of habeas corpus to anyone who
has the aggrieved person in his custody to have such person brought to the
court, and if he is suffering restraint without lawful cause, set him free.

5. Self Help:A person who is unlawfully detained may use self-help to

escape including reasonable force (though this is a question of fact one
might ask what force is reasonable to escape police custody). A person may
use reasonable force to defend himself fro-unlawful arrest. The force used
must be minimum and necessary in the circumstances, which means it
should be proportionate to the circumstances. This is risky course since the
power to arrest is likely to depend upon not only in the commission of
offence but in the alternative, in a reasonable suspicion there of. Hence an
innocent person who forcibly resists may be liable for battery if the arrester
had reasonable grounds for his suspicion.

12
CASES PERTAINING TO FALSE
IMPRISONMENT
 BIRD v. JONES (1845):Part of a highway is closed off for spectators of
a boat race, who paid for their seats. Bird (the plaintiff) wanted to walk
through the enclosure, and after hopping over the enclosure is stopped by
two officers (one of whom is Jones, the plaintiff). The officers told Bird that
he could not pass through the enclosure (where the seats were) (in addition
he had the barriers of the water in one direction and part of the enclosure in
the other) - but they DID tell him he was free to move in the other direction.

Holding: Not a case of false imprisonment as there was no “total restrain”.

The plaintiff could have easily taken another way.

 D.K.BASU v. STATE OF WEST-BENGAL (1997): In this case,

the petitioners raised important issues concerning the police powers and if
monetary compensation should be awarded for established infringement of
Fundamental Rights, as under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The
court held that Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock
ups, strikes a blow at the Rule of Law, which demands that the powers of the
executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should
be limited by law. To check the abuse of police power, transparency of
action and accountability did the court lay down the two safeguards. The
Court issued 11 directives where it spelled out the rights of an arrestee or a
detainee and the manner in which the arresting or detaining authority is
expected to behave, including the written record of arrest, informing of
arrestee’s family of his arrest, medical examination on request, among
others.

13
 BHIM SINGH v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR (1986):On
the opening day of the Budget Session of the Legislative Assembly, Shri
Bhim Singh was suspended from the Assembly. He questioned the
suspension in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir. The order of suspension
was stayed by the High Court. The next day, he was arrested and was taken
away by the police. His wife filed the present application for the issue of a
writ to direct the respondents to produce Shri Bhim Singh before the court,
to declare his detention illegal and to set him at liberty.

Holding: The court held that the detention was illegal and qualified as false
imprisonment.

 RUDUL SHAH v. STATE OF BIHAR (1983): It all began with the

landmark judgment in the case of Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar (Rudul Shah
was kept in illegal detention for over 14 years after his acquittal in a murder
case). In this case the Supreme Court decided to grant monetary
compensation for violation of right to personal liberty. This was the first
time when someone was awarded monetary compensation under the writ
jurisdiction provided in Article 32 of the constitution. In this case the court
decided to award a compensation of Rs. 35,000. The Court awarded this
compensation as an interim relief to Rudul Shah and the court also said that
this order wouldn’t preclude Rudul Shah from bringing a suit for recovery of
adequate damages from the State and the officers responsible. The
honourable court gave no reasoning for arriving at the specific amount as
interim relief.

14
CONCLUSION
The tort of false imprisonment is one of the most severe forms of human rights
violation. The Indian socio-legal system is based on non-violence, mutual
respect and human dignity of the individual. Even the prisoners have human
rights because the prison torture is not the last drug in the Justice
Pharmacopoeia but a confession of failure to do justice to a living man. In fact
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution also recognizes the same. Article 20 with
its sub-clauses re-enforces the same, and seeks to protect convicts from being
held down due to ex post facto laws (Art. 20 (a)), double jeopardy (Art. 20 (b))
and self-incrimination (Art. 20 (c)).

Thereby, after analyzing the various case laws and going through the various
principles of Tort Law, it can be concluded that:

 The right of a person to personal liberty, freedom and life with dignity has
been guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be
abrogated even during emergency, and false imprisonment is incongruous of
the same.

 The fact that a convict is imprisoned and has to serve a sentence, doesn’t
give the jail authorities any right to torment or torture him unnecessarily. It
is a false notion that the prisoner subject to intolerable hardships is
remedyless.

 The term of imprisonment is a decisive and vital factor to be taken into

consideration in order to compute and award damages. And while awarding
damages for false imprisonment physical or mental injury has to be kept in
mind.

15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 http://briefcat.com/casebriefs/33-bird-v-jones-115-eng-rep-688-k-b-1845

 https://letstalkaboutthelaw.wordpress.com

 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal , The Law of Torts(Wadhwa and company,

Nagpur,24th edn., 2004)

 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/fal_torts.htm

 http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/law-of-false-imprisonment-in-
india/#_edn6

 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/810491/

 http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/false+imprisonment

16