Bird v Jones [1845] 7 QB 742

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal