⇒ False imprisonment is an intentional act which directly brings about the claimant's confinement to a particular place. Unless a defence applies, the tort is actionable per se

• This general right appears to have a deep historical root: in the Magna Carta (1297), art XXIX, it is enacted that ‘no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his... Liberties, or ... be ... exiled...’.
• The European Convention on Human Rights Article 5(1) provides: Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person... No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law...

⇒ Usually, there will be no deprivation of someone's liberty where the measures taken to restrict someone's liberty are done for the common good e.g. to avert a real risk of damage (Austin v UK)

⇒ It must be an intentional act i.e. there must have been a voluntary and conscious act made by the defendant and there must have been substantial certainty his/her actions would lead to the claimant's confinement

• The defendant will be liable even if he/she mistakenly thought he had the lawful authority to detain (R v Governor of Brockhill Prison)

⇒ The defendant's actions must have been direct i.e. there must have been no intervening voluntary act

⇒ The tort requires a total restriction of the freedom of movement of the claimant

• Patterson J put it succinctly in Bird v Jones (1845): "imprisonment... is a total restraint of the liberty of the person, for however short a time, and not a partial obstruction of his will"

⇒ Imprisonment is not the same as failure to release

• See, for example, Iqbal v Prison Officers’ Association [2010]. Lord Bridge, in a similar case, has also pointed out that once a prisoner is detained lawfully under the Prison Act 1952 he no longer has 'residual liberty' and it is possible to restrain him/her and define his/her movements

⇒ There is no need for the claimant to be aware of their false imprisonment at the time that he/she has been confined (Meering v Grahame White Aviation). However, the claimant's awareness of their false imprisonment might affect the amount of damages they receive (Murray v Ministry of Defence)