Need capacity to prove intent Mistake not relevant for intent Hodgkindon v Martin MALICIOUS TRESPASS of IMPRISONMENT PROSECUTION proof rarely used Trespass on the Person Trespass on Trespass on Case Property P Direct Direct Direct Indirect Direct personally – interference done, not be natural trial P Total restraint - initiated Physical (physical (against will, no by D Interference presence of – or threat of) Apprehension reasonable route of - terminates for P person or on your land escape) P Harm / Harm / No reasonable Land in possession False arrest: offence offence or probable grounds no requirement of – – Imprisonment both subjective and ownership for trespass occurs through objective deployment of legal authority D Intent Intent Intent Malice Intent Actionable per NOT actionable Actionable per se per se per se se per se Damage Consent Consent Legal Self Self Authority Defense Defense Consent Duress Duress Legal Trial Authority Authority Battery Concerned with protecting and preserving dignity / integrity of person Every person’s body is inviolate Non Marine Underwriters Threat to person’s autonomy Actionable per se does not require of harm for action Bettel v. Yim – Threshold for what is considered battery very low Wide range of direct physical interferences prohibited - including what the person is wearing, carrying, riding on Morgan v Loyacomo 1941 p 61 Does NOT require intent to harm just intent of physical contact Bettel v. Yim – Elements of Battery Bettel v Yim – Directness (poison is indirect) Interference physical contact, can be trivial or severe, need not produce harm – Harmful / Socially Offensive Harm consequence) OR dignity offended Not harm required - Ex. Spitting (Alcorn v Mitchell) Cutting hair v Skinner) bodily contact not required – P need not be aware of harm when occurring (kissing sleeping girl) Intent desire to do actions that trigger consequences –
Need capacity to prove intent Mistake not relevant for intent Hodgkindon v Martin of proof rarely used IMPRISONMENT MALICIOUS PROSECUTION TRESPASS Trespass on the Person Trespass on Case Trespass on Property P Direct Direct Direct Indirect interference Direct – personally done, not be natural P (physical or threat of) Apprehension Total restraint (against will, no reasonable route of escape) False arrest: Imprisonment occurs through deployment of legal authority - initiated by D - terminates for P Physical Interference – presence of person or on your land P Harm / offence Harm / offence No reasonable or probable grounds – both subjective and objective Land in possession – no requirement of ownership for trespass D Intent Intent Intent Malice Intent per se per se Actionable per se NOT actionable per se Damage Actionable per se Consent Self Defense Duress Legal Authority Consent Self Defense Duress Authority Legal Authority Consent Battery Concerned with protecting and preserving dignity / integrity of person Every person’s body is inviolate Non Marine Underwriters Threat to person’s autonomy Actionable per se – does not require of harm for action Bettel v. Yim Threshold for what is considered battery very low Wide range of direct physical interferences prohibited - including what the person is wearing, carrying, riding on Morgan v Loyacomo 1941 p 61 Does NOT require intent to harm – just intent of physical contact Bettel v. Yim Elements of Battery – Bettel v Yim Directness (poison is indirect) Interference – physical contact, can be trivial or severe, need not produce harm Harmful / Socially Offensive Harm consequence) OR dignity offended Not harm required - Ex. Spitting (Alcorn v Mitchell) Cutting hair v Skinner) – bodily contact not required P need not be aware of harm when occurring (kissing sleeping girl) Intent – desire to do actions that trigger consequences Trial trial
Arbel_61_Fall_2016_Tracy_Simpson.docx