Bird v Jones [1845] 7 QB 742

The case of Bird v Jones [1845] 7 QB 742 is a landmark decision in English tort law concerning false imprisonment. The ruling clarified that false imprisonment requires total restraint of movement within a defined boundary and that partial obstruction or restriction in movement does not amount to false imprisonment. The judgement, delivered by Coleridge J., set a significant precedent for future cases concerning personal liberty and false imprisonment claims.

Facts of Bird v Jones

The facts of Bird v Jones revolved around an incident that took place on a public highway where access to a particular section was restricted. The Plaintiff, Bird, wished to cross a section of a public road that had been closed off to spectators due to a boat race. Two policemen (Defendants) prevented Bird from passing in the direction he wanted but allowed him to go in the only other direction available. Rather than accepting this alternative route, Bird refused to move and chose to remain in the same place. Bird then raised an action against the Defendants for false imprisonment.

Legal Issue

The primary issue in Bird versus Jones was whether preventing a person from moving in one direction, while leaving other directions unobstructed, constituted false imprisonment. The Plaintiff argued that the restriction on his desired movement amounted to unlawful confinement. The Defendants, on the other hand, contended that since Bird was free to move in another direction, he was not falsely imprisoned.

Arguments Presented

Plaintiff’s Argument

• Bird argued that by blocking his movement in his chosen direction, the Defendants had effectively deprived him of his liberty.
• He maintained that the restriction on movement in a single direction constituted false imprisonment.
• The Plaintiff further contended that the concept of imprisonment should not be limited to complete confinement and that any restriction of movement could qualify as false imprisonment.

Defendants’ Argument

• The Defendants argued that Bird was not confined because he had the option to move in another direction.
• They asserted that false imprisonment required total and absolute restriction within a fixed boundary.
• Since Bird could leave the area in another direction, he was not imprisoned, and therefore, no unlawful detention had occurred.

Bird v Jones Judgement and Decision

In Bird versus Jones, the court held that false imprisonment requires complete and absolute restriction of movement within a defined area. Since Bird was not entirely confined and had the option to move away in a different direction, his claim of false imprisonment failed. The ruling emphasised that a mere restriction on movement in one particular direction is insufficient to constitute false imprisonment.

Coleridge J., in his judgement, provided an essential explanation of what constitutes false imprisonment. He stated:

“A prison may have its boundary large or narrow, visible and tangible, or, though real, still in the conception only; it may itself be moveable or fixed: but a boundary it must have; and that boundary the party imprisoned must be prevented from passing; he must be prevented from leaving that place, within the ambit of which the party imprisoning would confine him, except by prison-breach.”

From this, it is evident that false imprisonment must involve total restraint within a defined boundary, and mere obstruction in one direction does not amount to unlawful detention.

Conclusion

The case of Bird v. Jones remains one of the most important decisions in false imprisonment law. It established that false imprisonment must involve total physical restraint within a defined boundary and that mere restriction of movement in one direction is not sufficient. The ruling clarified the distinction between obstruction and imprisonment and has been influential in shaping English tort law regarding personal liberty.