False imprisonment — common mistakes

In problem questions, always analyse whether the claimant had a reasonable alternative route. If they could have left, even if it was inconvenient, there is no total restraint. Contrast the facts with Bird v Jones to support your argument.

If the only means of escape is dangerous, unreasonable, or unknown to the claimant, the restraint is still considered 'total' and can constitute false imprisonment. For example, being locked in a first-floor room with an open window is still imprisonment, as climbing out would be a dangerous and unreasonable means of escape.

Yes, but only if they can prove lawful justification. This would typically be a 'citizen's arrest' under s.24A of PACE 1984. The arrest is only lawful if an indictable offence has been committed, there are reasonable grounds for believing the person detained is guilty, and the detention is for the purpose of handing them to the police as soon as practicable. If these conditions are not met, the detention will be unlawful and amount to false imprisonment.

Generally, false imprisonment requires a positive act by the defendant. However, an omission can constitute false imprisonment in specific circumstances where the defendant has a positive duty to release the claimant which they have failed to perform, such as a failure to release a prisoner at the end of their sentence. In Herd v Weardale Steel, the employer's failure to bring a miner to the surface was not false imprisonment as the miner was acting outside the terms of his contract and the employer had no immediate duty to release him.