note

1. F A L S E
I M P R I S O N M E N T
DEFINITION :
i> Restriction of
person 's freedom of movement
in any
form but not only force, with
unlawful justification .
I
> Duration is immaterial .
③ RESTRAINT MUST BE COMPLETE
② RESTRAINT AS DIRECT CONSEQUENCES HOWT0PR
① MENTAL STATE OF DEFENDANT / FOR Df 'S ACT f d,
¥
INTENTION
wµEsuep
No reasonable Dangerous route
-
DF must have intention to do such an act .
escape route Escape has to
escape
-
Results in confinement I>
Ppl who directly causes the imprisonment risk of injury
is DF
May
liable because :
I
µow
In,
If:L,
ima're
" ment
<
he confined p, lwRlGHivwks0Nu699#
DF omitted restraint intentionally he instigated another person to confine PF o
Pf can escape from confinement
Resulting PF to confinement
-
• No false imprisonment
HARNETT V BOND [1925 ] I
-
-
IWARNERVRIDDIFORDC185.se#
•
Df prevent PF (dismissed manager) to get his
belongings in upstairs
•
HELD :
It is false imprisonment
IWELPHINSTONEVLEELENGSANC193.si
concerned with persons
'
>
liberty to move freely w/o
restrictions
→ seminit pun takpe
must all be
correlated
7
]
* if person must
→ trespass
escape in risky / as well
sketch ways, thus
batu api gituw it is not a
reasonable escape
G Ansell v. Thomas
route
Bird v Jones
there was intention
f) to restrain movement
Pusat Asasi → movement of students are
restricted