Trespass to the person CASES
In English law, trespass to the person protects bodily security and liberty. It has three heads: assault (causing reasonable fear of imminent unlawful force), battery (intentional and direct application of unlawful force), and false imprisonment (total restraint of movement without lawful authority). These torts are generally actionable per se: a claimant need not prove financial loss to establish liability.
Definition and principles
Trespass to the person is concerned with intentional, direct interferences. Accidental or indirect harm is usually analysed in negligence instead. Ordinary social contact is not unlawful; consent (express or implied) often limits what counts as a battery. Words alone can amount to an assault where they reasonably create an expectation of imminent force; conditional threats may suffice depending on context. For false imprisonment, restraint must be complete—no reasonable way out.
Elements
- Assault: an intentional act that causes the claimant reasonably to apprehend imminent unlawful force. No touching is required.
- Battery: the intentional and direct application of unlawful force to the claimant. Any unwanted touching may qualify if more than the jostlings of everyday life.
- False imprisonment: the intentional, total restraint of liberty without lawful justification. Doors need not be locked; coercion or barriers can suffice if departure is effectively prevented.
Mental element and directness
Intention is the norm: the defendant means to do the act that interferes with the claimant (or is reckless as to that interference). The interference must be direct (for example, striking, grabbing, or placing a barrier to block exit). Omissions and remote consequences typically fall outside trespass and are addressed by negligence or other torts.
Defences and lawful justification
- Consent: express or implied (for example, everyday contact, sports within the rules, valid medical consent). Consent must be real and voluntary.
- Self-defence and defence of others/property: force must be necessary and proportionate in the circumstances as they reasonably appeared.
- Lawful authority: statutory or common-law powers (for example, lawful arrest or detention) exercised within their limits.
- Necessity: narrow situations where immediate action is reasonably required to prevent greater harm.
Remedies
Damages vindicate the right (including for distress, pain and loss of liberty). Aggravated damages may reflect humiliating or high-handed conduct; exemplary damages are rare
Home » Trespass to the person
A mother and son, improperly strip-searched during a prison visit, suffered psychiatric injury. The House of Lords rejected their claim for invasion of privacy, stating no such general tort existed in English law, and clarified the tort of intentional infliction of harm. Facts In December 1996, Mrs Carol Wainwright and her son Alan Wainwright visited Armley Prison in Leeds to see another son, Patrick, who was on remand. Alan Wainwright had cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. On suspicion that they were trafficking drugs, prison officers required them to undergo a strip-search. The searches were conducted in a manner that failed
A woman sunbathing on grass was negligently run over by a car. She sued after the three-year limitation period for negligence expired, framing her claim in trespass. The court held the claim was for negligence, not trespass, and was therefore statute-barred. Facts In July 1957, the plaintiff, Mrs Deidre Letang, was on holiday in Cornwall. While sunbathing on a piece of grass that served as a car park for a hotel, the defendant, Mr F.E. Cooper, negligently drove his Jaguar motor car over her legs, causing her injury. The plaintiff did not issue the writ for her action until February
The appellants, found liable in a civil action for the Omagh bombing, appealed the decision. They challenged the trial judge's reliance on the evidence of a key informant witness. The Court of Appeal re-evaluated the witness's credibility but ultimately dismissed the appeal. Facts This case is an appeal against a High Court decision which found the appellants, Michael McKevitt and Liam Campbell, liable in a civil action for the 1998 Omagh bombing. The action was brought by relatives of the victims of the bombing. The trial judge, Morgan J, found the appellants and two other defendants liable for the tort
During peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, British soldiers opened fire on a car, injuring the claimants. Sued in tort, the Ministry of Defence argued self-defence. The High Court applied English law, finding the soldiers liable for trespass to the person as their belief of an imminent attack was unreasonable. Facts In 2001, in Pristina, Kosovo, a British Army patrol was involved in a public order incident. The claimants were passengers in a Volkswagen Golf which drove towards the soldiers. Believing they were under attack from the vehicle, three soldiers opened fire. One passenger, Mr Bici, was killed (his claim was settled
