ANSWERING PROBLEMATIC QUESTION

Issue: Is there a trespass to persons issue involved?

Rule:

Trespass to personso Assault, battery, false imprisonmento Actionable per seo Without the need for proof of actual physical harmo This case comprises of 2 elements- Battery and false imprisonment

o Battery: Intentional and direct contact force to another person (Winfield)o Decided cases

Collins v Wilcock [1984] Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] and Livingstone v Ministry

of Defence [1984]- intentiono Batteries charge on Sam

The elements of intention and physical contact are satisfied. Intentionally, Sam grabbed Bill’s bag without his consent, wanting to check

his bag as he was acting suspiciously, consequently Bill lost his balance and knocked his head on the corner of the shelf and this was where direct contact force resulted, causing injury to the claimant.

o Batteries charge on Dr Nathan Dr Nathan intentionally injected a tetanus vaccine into Bill notwithstanding

Bill’s vehement rejection- a direct contact force onto Bill was applied here. On top of that, Bill seemed to be reasonably lucid on the ward, where he was capable of exercising his own judgment. Yet, consent was refused. Dr Nathan did not abide with patient’s will and decision.

o The same principle could be applied to Malaysian cases Abd Malek Bin Hussin [2008]- intention Shalini Shanmugam [2007] Tiong Pik Hong v Wong Siew Gieu [1964]

o False imprisonment: The intention of unlawful and total physical restraint of the liberty of the Claimant (Steele)

o Decided cases: R v Governor of Brockhill Prison [2000]- Detention for extra days were

unlawful and malice or hostility need not to be shown. Bird v Jones [1845]- Restraint must be total and entirely impede their

freedom of movement.o False imprisonment charges on Eric and Ernie

Despite Bill’s refusal, they insisted bringing him in to the ambulance and sent to hospital. The period of Bill being forcefully and totally detained in an ambulance was thought to be false imprisonment.

o False imprisonment charges on Dr Nathan Dr Nathan forcefully restrained Bill who was thought to be delirious from

leaving his ward therefore resulting in false imprisonment.o In Malaysian cases,

Under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution, everyone has their personal liberty saved pursuant to the law.

Under Contravention of Art 5(3), battery occurs during unlawful detention, amounts to false imprisonment.

Therefore, Dr Nathan, Eric and Ernie will all be held liable for infringing Bill’s liberty

Abd Malek bin Husin v Borhan bin Hj Daud [2008]

Conclusion:

Possible defences:o Sam can defend himself under s. 24A(1) and s.24(A)2, Police and Criminal Evidence

Act 1984, whereby anyone may arrest any person without a warrant if he or she has a reasonable ground to suspect a person committing an indictable offence; the second is anyone can arrest without a warrant a person where an indictable offence has been committed and that person has reason to believe the person arrested has committed that offence. Sam had his sensible reasons to arrest Bill whom he suspected to be a thief.

o Dr Nathan, Eric and Ernie could argue that Bill was incapable of consenting to treatment as he was thought to be delirious. According to Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, it was necessary for a doctor to act in the best interest of the patient.

The liabilities that are addressed here are battery and false imprisonment albeit there are other issues involved.

The possible damage is monetary compensation. Therefore, Bill has potential claims against the parties aforementioned.