top of page

False Imprisonment in Tort Law

False Imprisonment in Tort Law
False Imprisonment in Tort Law


False Imprisonment

False imprisonment is defined as the complete restriction, no matter how brief, of an individual's freedom without adequate lawful justification. Contrary to common belief, traditional incarceration is not a prerequisite for this offence. 

Whether a person is confined within physical boundaries or prevented from leaving a particular location, if their personal liberty is curtailed, false imprisonment occurs. Even restraining someone through the threat of force, such as preventing them from exiting their own home or an open area, constitutes false imprisonment.

Essential Elements of False Imprisonment

  1. Total Restraint: The fundamental requirement for false imprisonment is the complete deprivation of an individual's liberty. This can occur through physical confinement or through threats or actions that effectively restrict their movement.

  2. Absence of Lawful Justification: False imprisonment occurs only when there is no legal justification for the restraint imposed on the individual. Actions taken to restrict someone's liberty must be supported by valid legal reasons to avoid constituting false imprisonment.


Total Restraint

In both criminal and civil law, the degree of restraint imposed upon an individual determines the legal characterization of the offence. Whether the restraint is total or partial, it carries legal implications that differ based on the extent of the restriction.

Criminal Law Distinction

Wrongful Confinement vs. Wrongful Restraint: Under criminal law, total restraint resulting in the prevention of an individual from leaving certain defined limits constitutes "wrongful confinement" under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Conversely, when the restraint is partial, only preventing the person from going in a specific direction, it falls under "wrongful restraint" as per Section 339 of the IPC.

Civil Law Perspective

In civil law, false imprisonment occurs when there is a complete deprivation of liberty. If an individual is only prevented from moving in a particular direction but remains free to move elsewhere, it does not constitute false imprisonment.

Bird v. Jones

In the case of Bird v. Jones, the defendant wrongfully enclosed a portion of a public footway and restricted access to those who paid. Although the plaintiff was prevented from proceeding forward, the court ruled that it did not amount to false imprisonment since the plaintiff remained free to retreat or traverse the bridge via the carriage way.

Legal Analysis

  1. Boundary of Restraint: False imprisonment entails preventing an individual from leaving a defined area, whether tangible or conceptual. The boundary must restrict the person from departing without breaching confinement, irrespective of the location of detention, be it a street, a room, or even their own house.

  2. Means of Restraint: False imprisonment does not necessarily involve physical force. Even the threat of force, constraining an individual within specified limits, is sufficient to constitute the offence.

Means of Escape

The presence of means of escape plays a crucial role in determining whether a restraint amounts to false imprisonment. For restraint to be considered total, there must be no reasonable means for the individual to escape. 

However, these means must be understandable and accessible to the person detained. For instance, if the detained individual is blind or a child, the means of escape should be discernible to them.

Additionally, the means provided must offer a practical and safe way out of detention. If the escape route poses risks such as potential injury or threats of violence, it holds no significance, and the detention is deemed false imprisonment.


Knowledge of the Plaintiff

There exists a debate regarding whether the plaintiff's awareness of their restraint is necessary to establish false imprisonment.

In Herring v. Boyle, it was held that the plaintiff's knowledge of the restraint is essential. The case involved a schoolboy whose mother was wrongfully prevented from taking him home without payment. As the boy was unaware of the restraint imposed in his absence, the court ruled it did not amount to false imprisonment.

However, in Meering v. Grahame-white Aviation Co., it was determined that the plaintiff's awareness of the imprisonment is not a prerequisite for a claim of false imprisonment. According to Atkin, L.J., imprisonment could occur without the individual's knowledge, such as during sleep, intoxication, unconsciousness, or insanity.

The plaintiff in Meering's case, suspected of theft, was detained by his employer pending police arrival, leading to a false imprisonment claim upon his acquittal.

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page