## Facts

- A portion of a public highway on Hammersmith Bridge was cordoned off for paying spectators to watch a boat race.
- Bird attempted to enter and proceed along the cordoned portion of the bridge as part of his route.
- Bird was initially stopped; after a struggle, he climbed into the enclosed area.
- Acting under Jones’s direction, two policemen prevented Bird from moving forward in the direction he wished along the bridge.
- The policemen made clear Bird was free to go back or move away in other directions, including returning to the footway and proceeding by a different path.
- Bird refused the offered alternatives and remained where he was, insisting on a right to pass forward along the highway.
- Bird sued for assault and false imprisonment.
- The jury found for Bird on assault but against him on false imprisonment.
- Bird sought to have judgment entered for him on false imprisonment as a matter of law; the court refused and left the verdict against him standing.

## Issues

1. Whether preventing a person from proceeding in one direction along a public highway, while leaving the person free to remain or go elsewhere, constitutes false imprisonment.
2. Whether false imprisonment requires confinement within defined limits amounting to a total restraint of liberty.

## Decision

- The court discharged the rule to enter a verdict for Bird on false imprisonment, leaving the jury’s finding for Jones on that claim in place.
- The majority held there was no false imprisonment because Bird was not totally restrained; he could leave the area or go in other directions.
- The court distinguished partial obstruction (blocking a route in one direction) from confinement within a bounded area.
- Lord Denman C.J. dissented, reasoning that preventing a person from doing what he has a right to do (passing along the highway) can amount to imprisonment even if other options remain.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment requires a total restraint of the claimant’s liberty, not merely interference with movement in a particular direction.
- Confinement must be within some boundary (physical or conceptual) that the claimant is prevented from crossing; a “prison” must have limits.
- Detention may occur without physical contact, including by assertion of authority or barriers, but it must amount to actual confinement rather than diversion.
- If the claimant has a practicable ability to leave or proceed in other directions, restraint is not total; choosing to stay does not convert a partial obstruction into imprisonment.
- A dissenting view would treat unlawful prevention of passage on a public highway as sufficient restraint even if alternative movements remain available.

## Conclusion

The court held that blocking a person’s progress in one direction on a public highway, while leaving the person free to go elsewhere, is not false imprisonment because the tort requires confinement amounting to total restraint within defined limits.


Bird v. Jones, 7 Q.B. 742 (Q.B. 1845)