Cases looked at :

- Birds v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742

o Found that mere obstruction was not sufficient enough grounds to constitute false

imprisonment o ‘If it be said that to hold the present case to amount to an imprisonment would turn

every obstruction of the exercise of a right of way into an imprisonment, the answer is, that there must be something like personal menace or force accompanying the act of obstruction, and that, with this, it will amount to imprisonment”

- Myer Stores Ltd v Soo [1991] VicRp 97o The learned trial judge found that the respondent was imprisoned from the

moment he was spoken to by Constable Sterling (the third-named appellant) in the hi-fi department until he was allowed to leave the security room at Myer Stores Ltd His Honour also found that: "the police intentionally restrained the freedom of movement of the plaintiff by actively escorting him and passively by making known to him their clear intention to ask him some questions about shoplifting. In my opinion it was made clear to the plaintiff that he had no option but to follow Evans and by being followed by the police it was made clear to him that he had no choice in fact - his freedom of movement had been totally restrained."

- Alleyne v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 3955 (QB) (21 September 2012):

o I note that false imprisonment is the restraint of the person such that they cannot

freely leave, whether that be in their house or elsewhere; it does not require any touching of the person:

o There are two elements to this. The first is the detention of the Claimant in handcuffs

upon the floor, before the handcuffs were released and he was permitted to go to his living room. The second is the alleged detention for "approximately 4 hours and 14 minutes between 13.55 hours and 18.08 hours" (Particulars of Claim paragraph 22a).

- Blamain New Ferry Co Ltd v Roberston o He had entered it of his own free will and with the knowledge that the only exit on

the land side was through the turnstile, operated as a part of the company's system of collecting fares in the manner I have mentioned. If he wished to use the turnstile as a means of exit he could only do so on complying with the usual conditions on which the company opened them. The company were lawfully entitled to impose the condition of a penny payment on all who used the turnstiles, whether they had travelled by the company's steamers or not, and they were under no obligation to make an exception in the plaintiff's favour. The company, therefore, being lawfully entitled to impose that condition, and the plaintiff being free to pass out through the turnstile at any time on complying with it, he had only himself to blame for his detention, and there was no imprisonment of which he could legally complain

LOOOK AT BURTON v DAVIES Supreme Court of QueenslandJudges: Townley J

Judgment Date: 1/1/1953Jurisdiction: Australia (Queensland) Citations: [1953] St R Qd 26, 27 ALJ 388

see Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742; Balmain New Ferry Company Ltd v Robertson [1906] HCA 83; (1906) 4 CLR 379; Herd v Weardale Steel, Cole and Coke Company Ltd and Ors [1914] UKHL 2; [1915] AC 67; Burns v Johnston [1916] 2 KB 444.