## Facts

- The claimant, Bird, attempted to proceed along a section of public road temporarily closed for a boat race.
- Police officers prevented Bird from passing in his intended direction but did not restrict all possible avenues; other routes were available for movement.
- Bird refused to use alternative routes and remained where he was, later bringing an action for false imprisonment against those who obstructed him.
- The dispute centered on whether preventing movement in only one direction constituted false imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Does prevention of movement in a specific direction, while alternative routes remain open, satisfy the requirements for false imprisonment?
2. Is a total obstruction of freedom of movement necessary for the tort of false imprisonment?

## Decision

- The court found against Bird, rejecting his claim for false imprisonment.
- It was determined that partial obstruction, where some avenues for movement remain open, does not meet the legal threshold for false imprisonment.
- The court emphasized that false imprisonment requires total restriction of movement, not mere prevention of passage in a preferred direction.
- The judgment highlighted that no force was used and Bird was able to move away by alternative routes.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment requires a total, as opposed to a partial, restraint on an individual's liberty.
- A boundary, whether physical or conceptual, must exist, which the claimant is prevented from crossing.
- Mere disturbance or partial restriction of movement is insufficient for an actionable claim.
- Contractual or reasonable conditions permitting restraint, such as those in Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd [1910] AC 295 and Heard v Weardale Steel, Coal & Coke Co [1915] AC 67, may preclude liability for false imprisonment.
- Actual use of force is not a prerequisite for the tort; legal constraint upon movement suffices.
- Subsequent cases, such as Meering v Graham-White Aviation Co Ltd (1920) 122 LT 44, confirmed that awareness of imprisonment is not necessary—objective unlawful total restraint is sufficient.

## Conclusion

Bird v Jones [1845] 7 QB 742 established that false imprisonment occurs only when an individual is totally restrained from leaving an area, not when free movement is restricted in only one direction. The decision remains a leading authority, shaping later cases and the modern law of false imprisonment by drawing a clear distinction between total and partial restraint.
