False imprisonment

Last updated

False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person's movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. [1] Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. [2]

Contents

Under common law, false imprisonment is both a crime and a tort.

Imprisonment

Within the context of false imprisonment, an imprisonment occurs when a person is restrained from moving from a location or bounded area, as a result of a wrongful intentional act, such as the use of force, threat, coercion, or abuse of authority. [1]

Detention that is not false imprisonment

Not all acts of involuntary detention amount to false imprisonment. An accidental detention will not support a claim of false imprisonment since false imprisonment requires an intentional act. The law may privilege a person to detain somebody else against their will. A legally authorised detention does not constitute false imprisonment. For example, if a parent or legal guardian of a child denies the child's request to leave their house, and prevents them from doing so, this would not ordinarily constitute false imprisonment.

By country

United States

Under United States law, police officers have the right to detain individuals based on probable cause that a crime has been committed and the individual was involved, or based on reasonable suspicion that the individual has been, is, or is about to be engaged in a criminal activity.

Elements

To prevail under a false imprisonment claim, a plaintiff must prove:

  1. Willful detention in a bounded area
  2. Without consent; and
  3. Without authority of lawful arrest. (Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts)

Shopkeeper's privilege

Many jurisdictions in the United States recognize the common law known as shopkeeper's privilege under which a person is allowed to use reasonable force to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time. The shopkeeper has cause to believe that the detainee in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property. The shopkeeper is allowed to ask the suspect to demonstrate that they have not been shoplifting. The purpose of the shopkeeper's privilege is to discover if the suspect is shoplifting and, if so, whether the shoplifted item can be reclaimed. [3] [4]

The shopkeeper's privilege is not as broad as police officer's privilege to arrest. [3] The shopkeeper may only detain the suspect for a comparatively short period of time. If a shopkeeper unreasonably detains the suspect, uses excessive force to detain the suspect, or fails to notify the police within a reasonable time after detaining the suspect, then the detention may constitute false imprisonment and may result in an award of damages. In jurisdictions without the privilege, detention must meet the jurisdiction's standards for a citizen's arrest. [5]

Rationale

This privilege has been justified by the very practical need for some degree of protection for shopkeepers in their dealings with suspected shoplifters. Absent such privilege, a shopkeeper would be faced with the dilemma of either allowing suspects to leave without challenge or acting upon their suspicion and risk making a false arrest. [6]

Requirement

In order for a customer to be detained, the shopkeeper must: [7]

  1. Conduct the investigation on the store premises, or immediately near the premises.
  2. Have reasonable cause to believe the person detained was shoplifting.
  3. Use reasonable (non-excessive) force to detain the suspected individual.
  4. Not prolong the detention longer than a reasonable amount of time needed to gather all the facts.

Examples

Colorado

In Enright v. Groves, a woman sued a police officer for false imprisonment after being arrested for not producing her driver's license. The plaintiff was in her car when she was approached by the officer for not leashing her dog; she was arrested after being asked to produce her driver's license and failing to do so. She won her claim, despite having lost the case of not leashing her dog. The court reasoned that the officer did not have proper legal authority in arresting her, because he arrested her for not producing her driver's license (which itself was legal) as opposed to the dog leash violation. [8]

Indiana

In a Clark County, Indiana Circuit Court case, Destiny Hoffman was jailed for 154 days, during which "no hearing was conducted to determine the validity of such sanction and the defendant was not represented by counsel" according to deputy county prosecutor Michaelia Gilbert. [9] An order by Judge Jerry Jacobi [10] in the Clark County Circuit Court case was supposed to be a 48-hour jail stay for Hoffman, pending drug evaluation and treatment, "until further order of the court." [9] After a motion by Prosecutor Gilbert, Special Judge Steve Fleece ordered Hoffman released and said Hoffman's incarceration was "a big screw up". [10]

Louisiana

In a Louisiana case in the United States, a pharmacist and his pharmacy were found liable by a trial court for false imprisonment. They stalled for time and instructed a patient to wait while simultaneously and without the patient's knowledge calling the police. The pharmacist was suspicious of the patient's prescription, which her doctor had called in previously. When the police arrived, they arrested the patient. While the patient was in jail, the police verified with her doctor that the prescription was authentic and that it was meant for her. After this incident, the patient sued the pharmacy and its employees. She received $20,000 damages. An appeals court reversed the judgment, because it believed the elements of false imprisonment were not met. [11] [12]

United Kingdom

This tort again falls under the umbrella term "trespass to the person" alongside "battery and assault". [13] The definition of false imprisonment under UK law and legislation is the "Unlawful imposition or constraint of another's freedom of movement from a particular place." [14] False imprisonment is where the defendant intentionally or recklessly, and unlawfully, restricts the claimant's freedom of movement totally. [15] During which there is no time limit, false imprisonment could occur for seconds and still be false imprisonment.

Any restraint of the liberty of a free man will be an imprisonment.

— Lord Denman CJ [16]

Elements

Intentional or reckless

An example of reckless imprisonment may be a janitor locking up a school for the night, knowing that someone might still be inside, but without bothering to check. Whereas, regarding intention, intention to imprison a person is what matters and not necessarily an intention to falsely imprison someone. For example, in R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans , [17] it did not matter if the decision to imprison the claimant was in good faith, or considered lawful, it still constituted false imprisonment.

False imprisonment does not require a literal prison, but a restriction of the claimant's freedom of movement (complete restraint). According to the Termes de la Ley , 'imprisonment is the restraint of a man's liberty, whether it be in the open field, or in the stocks, or in the cage in the streets or in a man's own house, as well as in the common gaole'. Imprisonment does not have to involve seizure of the claimant; touching and informing him that he is under arrest are sufficient. [18] Tagging and an imposed curfew can be false imprisonment. [19] [20] The restriction must also be total, meaning that the claimant is restricted to an area delimited by the defendant. The larger the area, the less likely the claimant will be deemed to be imprisoned. For example, confining a person to a house would constitute the tort of false imprisonment. However, confining someone to the land mass of the USA would not.

Therefore, false imprisonment is not just about locking someone within a room, the following examples have all been found to constitute false imprisonment:

  • Where a defendant might position themselves in a doorway to prevent someone leaving a room, as in Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2014]. [21]
  • Where a defendant might threaten violence if the claimant leaves, which could thus be both false imprisonment and assault. [22]
  • Where a defendant ensures someone stays in a room simply by asserting their authority, as in Harnett v Bond and Meering v Grahame-White Aviation. [23] [24]

Finally, where a claimant accedes to authority that does not necessarily mean they consent to being detained, as in Warner v Riddiford (1858). [25]

Complete restraint

'Imprisonment is, as I apprehend, 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.' [26] There must be complete restraint, therefore, if there are alternative routes that can be taken this is not false imprisonment. Such as in Bird v Jones [1845] [16] where the claimant wanted to walk over Hammersmith bridge but the defendant had cordoned off the public footpath, however, this did not constitute false imprisonment because, through using a longer route, the claimant could have still reached their destination.

Therefore, if there is a means of escape, this is not false imprisonment. There must be no reasonable means of escape and you may be compensated for any damages caused in order for you to escape reasonably. However, if you have not taken a reasonable route of escape/reasonable action you will not be awarded damages. [27]

Awareness

It is still false imprisonment even where the claimant does not know at the time. So secretly locking someone in a room is false imprisonment. It may also be false imprisonment where a person is rendered unconscious, for example, by being punched (also a battery), or when their drink is spiked by drugs (also wilful harm or negligence), because their freedom of movement is thereby restricted. [28] For example, in the case of Meering v Grahame-White Aviation [1918] [29] the claimant was told to stay in an office because property was going missing and if they tried to leave the office they would have been stopped. This was held to be a false imprisonment even though the claimant did not know they were being imprisoned.

Omission

Can the tort of false imprisonment be committed by omission?

In the majority of circumstances/generally, the answer is no, as there must be a positive act. Yet, in certain circumstances defendants may still be found liable if they are under a positive obligation to release the claimant and the claimant has the legal right to be released. In the case of Prison Officer's Association v Iqbal [30] where a defendant could not leave their cell due to the prison officers being on strike, it was held at [61] that:

'It seems to me that the general rule that an omission or refusal to release the claimant from confinement will not amount to false imprisonment should not be overridden save in circumstances where the claimant has a legal right to be released and the defendant is under a positive obligation to release the claimant.' [30]

Thus, the defendants were liable for omission under the tort of false imprisonment.

Moreover, in the case of R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans , [17] where the claimant should be released from prison and they weren't, due to a genuine mistake meaning they were held in prison for longer, this was still held to be false imprisonment.

Lawful imprisonment
Performance of a contract

This can be looked at as consent, therefore, the imprisonment is not unlawful nor false imprisonment, for example, when flying, you consent to be on the plane for that duration of time through contract. The courts have said it is not unlawful to refuse to open a train door when the train is on a bridge, even though the passenger is thereby restricted inside the train. [15] Likewise, a master of a ship, [31] or the pilot of a plane [32] can detain people during a voyage or flight when they have a reasonable cause or grounds to believe it necessary for the safety of their other passengers. Suddenly saying "I would like to leave now" is dangerous and thus, they have no reason to let you leave, moreover, you are contractually obligated to remain onboard. Therefore, this would not constitute false imprisonment.

Additionally, when a claimant is following a work contract the employer may not be held for false imprisonment for not allowing them to leave early due to a breach of contract and potential losses that could result from them leaving. In the case of Herd v Weardale Steel Coal [33] where the claimant was in a mine, they were working and they wanted to leave the mine. The employer refused to let them leave at that time and the court held that the employer was under no obligation to allow them to do so.

Police

Under English law, police have the right to arrest under a warrant issued by a magistrate, [15] and following conditions set out in PACE Code G. Or without a warrant, police may make an arrest pursuant to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: [34] 'anyone who is about to commit, is committing or has committed an offence or is so suspected on reasonable grounds may be arrested.' Also, arrest may be lawful if the police have reason to believe that the person arrested poses an imminent risk of harm to themselves or others. Private citizens can also make an arrest for crimes being committed/that have been committed but only in relation to indictable offences ('citizen's arrest'). [15] When a prisoner is lawfully held, it is not false imprisonment just because the conditions are unsanitary such as in the case of R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, [35] 'although this may instead be found to be negligence or the tort of misfeasance in a public office.' [15]

Another example would again be the case of Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2007], [26] a case concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "kettling", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. [36] The pair lost their court action in 2005, [37] when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. [37] A ruling by the House of Lords declared that 'even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.' [38]

Defences

Defences for false imprisonment include consent and performance of a contract. Moreover, the defence of illegality may also apply. If the victim was acting illegally, locking them in a room to protect oneself whilst calling the police is a legitimate defence. However, if the use of force or in this case imprisonment was unreasonable, this would not be a viable defence, as is shown in the case of Revil v Newbery [39] where a homeowner fired a shotgun to the burglar and ended up injuring him, this was held to be an unreasonable use of force and thus, the defence of illegality was void.

Damages

If the false imprisonment was for a minimal amount of time, the claimant could be entitled to nominal damages, as this tort is actionable per se. In Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2014] [21] where someone was stopped in a doorway for a couple of seconds this was still held to be false imprisonment. Additionally, if the applicant was injured through trying to escape using reasonable methods they may be entitled to compensatory damages. When law enforcement authorities violate the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution by detaining people without sufficient reason or disregarding due process, then it undermines the country's judicial system. Such actions violate individuals' rights while gravely damaging public trust in the criminal justice process. [40] Finally, if the claimant suffered an 'affront to their dignity', [15] they may be awarded aggravated damages (these are very rare). For example, in the case of Hook v Cunard Steamship Co Ltd [41] the sailor was confined to his quarters and accused of child molestation but with 'no vestige of grounds in support', [41] this was held to be false imprisonment and aggravated damages were available due to this causing humiliation and injury to the claimant's feelings. [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

In common law, battery is a tort falling under the umbrella term 'trespass to the person'. Entailing unlawful contact which is directed and intentional, or reckless and voluntarily bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them, such as a bag or purse, without legal consent.

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. 'The conduct forbidden by this tort is an act that threatens violence.'

False arrest, unlawful arrest or wrongful arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<i>Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee</i> English landmark tort law case

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, they are not negligent. Bolam was rejected in the 2015 Supreme Court decision of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board in matters of informed consent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec, making the law system is bijural, as it is used throughout Canadian provinces except for Québec, which uses private law. In nine of Canada's ten provinces and three territories, tort law originally derives that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of committing a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, the person is not required to identify himself or herself, even in these states.

Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, found under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter, guarantees the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment. Section nine states:

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Detention (imprisonment)</span> Process whereby a state or private citizen lawfully holds a person, removing their freedom

Detention is the process whereby a state or private citizen lawfully holds a person by removing their freedom or liberty at that time. This can be due to (pending) criminal charges preferred against the individual pursuant to a prosecution or to protect a person or property. Being detained does not always result in being taken to a particular area, either for interrogation or as punishment for a crime. An individual may be detained due a psychiatric disorder, potentially to treat this disorder involuntarily. They may also be detained for to prevent the spread of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis.

Shopkeeper's privilege is a law recognized in the United States under which a shopkeeper is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, so long as the shopkeeper has cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pre-trial detention</span> Detention after arrest and charge until a trial

Pre-trial detention, also known as jail, preventive detention, provisional detention, or remand, is the process of detaining a person until their trial after they have been arrested and charged with an offence. A person who is on remand is held in a prison or detention centre or held under house arrest. Varying terminology is used, but "remand" is generally used in common law jurisdictions and "preventive detention" elsewhere. However, in the United States, "remand" is rare except in official documents and "jail" is instead the main terminology. Detention before charge is commonly referred to as custody and continued detention after conviction is referred to as imprisonment.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court that ruled that a person in police custody following a misdemeanor traffic offense was entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment pursuant to the decision in Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Previously, some courts had been applying Miranda only to serious offenses.

The Penal Law of the State of New York combines justification and necessity into a single article, Article 35. "Defense of Justification" comprises sections 35.05 through 35.30 of the Penal Law. The general provision relating to necessity, section 35.05, provides:

§ 35.05 Justification; generally.

Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:

Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span> Aspect of Indian law

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

References

  1. 1 2 "False Imprisonment". Wex. Cornell Law School. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017. Retrieved 6 November 2017.
  2. ↑ "Overview: False Imprisonment". Oxford Reference. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017. Retrieved 6 November 2017.
  3. 1 2 Bidfell, Connor (2019). "Shopkeeper's Privilege: Coming to a Store near You". Canadian Bar Review. 97 (3): 558.
  4. ↑ Beato, Alexandra; Davies, Melissa (2021). "Arrests of Persons". Georgia State University Law Review. 38: 25.
  5. ↑ Flanders, Chad; Brooks, Raina; Compton, Jack; Riley, Liz (2020). "The Puzzling Persistence of Citizen's Arrest Laws and the Need to Revisit Them". Howard Law Journal. 64: 161.
  6. ↑ See § 120A Restatement (second) of Torts. American Law Institute. 1965. ISBN   0314012710 . Retrieved 6 November 2017.
  7. ↑ "Shopkeepers Privilege Law & Legal Definition". USLegal. Archived from the original on 9 January 2015. Retrieved 12 September 2014.
  8. ↑ "Enright v. Groves, 39 Colo.App. 39, 560 P.2d 851 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 6 November 2017.
  9. 1 2 Neil, Martha (28 January 2014). "Woman lost in system serves 154 days instead of 48 hours; prosecutor filed motion to get her out". American Bar Association. Archived from the original on 11 March 2015. Retrieved 31 January 2014.
  10. 1 2 POPP, GARY (24 January 2014). "'A BIG SCREW UP:' Woman sentenced to two days in Clark County jail serves five months". News and Tribune. Archived from the original on 31 January 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2014.
  11. ↑ "Taylor v. Johnson, 796 So.2d 11 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2001)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 6 November 2017.
  12. ↑ Simonsmeier, Larry M. (1 March 2005). "False Imprisonment Alleged When Patient Is Detained with Suspicious Rx". Pharmacy Times. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017. Retrieved 6 November 2017.
  13. ↑ Horsey, Kirsty; Radley, Erica (2019). Tort Law (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780198829270.
  14. ↑ Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172 (Goff LJ at [1177])
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Timon Hughes-Davies and Nathan Tamblyn (2020). Tort law, 2nd ed. Routledge. ISBN   9781138554597.
  16. 1 2 Bird v Jones [1845] EWHC 7 QB 742
  17. 1 2 R v Governor of Brockhill Prison ex parte Evans [1997] QB 443
  18. ↑ Deakin, Simon F.; Adams, Zoe; Markesinis, Basil (2019). Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780198747963.
  19. ↑ R (Gedi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 276 (Admin), [2016] EWCA Civ 409
  20. ↑ R (Jollah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1260
  21. 1 2 Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2014] EWCA Civ 897
  22. ↑ Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374, 380 (QBD)
  23. ↑ Harnett v Bond [1925] AC 669 (HL)
  24. ↑ Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1920) 122 LT 44
  25. ↑ Warner v Riddiford (1858) 4 CBNS 180, 140 ER 1052
  26. 1 2 Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2007] EWCA Civ 989
  27. ↑ Hicks v Young [2015] EWHC 1144 (QB)
  28. ↑ Professor Matthew Channon (Exeter University Law School)
  29. ↑ Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1920) 122 LT 44
  30. 1 2 Prison Officer's Association v Iqbal [2009]
  31. ↑ Hook v Cunard Steamship Co Ltd [1953] 1 All ER 1021
  32. ↑ Civil Aviation Act 1982 s. 94
  33. ↑ Herd v Weardale Steel Coal & Coke Co Ltd [1915] AC 67
  34. ↑ Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  35. ↑ R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison ex p Hague [1992] 1 AC 58 (HL)
  36. ↑ "Police sued over May Day protest". BBC News. London. 28 April 2002. Archived from the original on 9 May 2004. Retrieved 16 April 2009.
  37. 1 2 "Pair lose protest damages claim". BBC News. London. 23 March 2005. Archived from the original on 29 June 2017. Retrieved 6 November 2017.
  38. ↑ "Judgments - Austin (FC) (Appellant) & another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent) (2009)". www.parliament.uk. U.K. Parliament. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017. Retrieved 6 November 2017.
  39. ↑ Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239
  40. ↑ Bhuiyan Prantik, Md. Toslim (2024). "Unlawful Detention: A Betrayal of Human Dignity and the Rule of Law." The Daily Star
  41. 1 2 Hook v Cunard Steamship Co Ltd [1953] 1 Lloyd's Rep 413
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.