Question Description
Paragraph: False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification or consent. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. Even if a lecturer locks his class in the lecture room after the usual timefor dismissal has arrived, that is false imprisonment; so, too, if a person be restrained from leaving his own house or any part of it, or be forcibly detained in the public streets. Furthermore, as laid down in the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, any act which fulfills the conditions of a false imprisonment, would still be held to constitute that offence, even if the person who was being falsely imprisoned had no knowledge about the same.Under English Law, however, the police have been empowered to arrest and detain a person under principles of prompt investigation, for such purposes as gaining evidence or taking statements, under the conditions set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, Code G. In the United Kingdom, a case was brought to the High Court concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "kettling", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus for several hours without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not even involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. A ruling by the House of Lords declared that even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.Q. In reference to the passage, would warning a person of grieve consequences if he decided to step out of an unlocked room, amount to false imprisonment?a)Yes, because it would be equivalent to vitiating his consent by coercion.b)No, because he was free to walk out of the open door if he wished to.c)Yes, because he was being intimidated and hence was being indirectly confined to that room.d)No, because mere apprehension of danger should not have prevented him from leaving the room.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Paragraph: False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification or consent. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. Even if a lecturer locks his class in the lecture room after the usual timefor dismissal has arrived, that is false imprisonment; so, too, if a person be restrained from leaving his own house or any part of it, or be forcibly detained in the public streets. Furthermore, as laid down in the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, any act which fulfills the conditions of a false imprisonment, would still be held to constitute that offence, even if the person who was being falsely imprisoned had no knowledge about the same.Under English Law, however, the police have been empowered to arrest and detain a person under principles of prompt investigation, for such purposes as gaining evidence or taking statements, under the conditions set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, Code G. In the United Kingdom, a case was brought to the High Court concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "kettling", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus for several hours without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not even involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. A ruling by the House of Lords declared that even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.Q. In reference to the passage, would warning a person of grieve consequences if he decided to step out of an unlocked room, amount to false imprisonment?a)Yes, because it would be equivalent to vitiating his consent by coercion.b)No, because he was free to walk out of the open door if he wished to.c)Yes, because he was being intimidated and hence was being indirectly confined to that room.d)No, because mere apprehension of danger should not have prevented him from leaving the room.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Paragraph: False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification or consent. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. Even if a lecturer locks his class in the lecture room after the usual timefor dismissal has arrived, that is false imprisonment; so, too, if a person be restrained from leaving his own house or any part of it, or be forcibly detained in the public streets. Furthermore, as laid down in the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, any act which fulfills the conditions of a false imprisonment, would still be held to constitute that offence, even if the person who was being falsely imprisoned had no knowledge about the same.Under English Law, however, the police have been empowered to arrest and detain a person under principles of prompt investigation, for such purposes as gaining evidence or taking statements, under the conditions set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, Code G. In the United Kingdom, a case was brought to the High Court concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "kettling", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus for several hours without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not even involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. A ruling by the House of Lords declared that even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.Q. In reference to the passage, would warning a person of grieve consequences if he decided to step out of an unlocked room, amount to false imprisonment?a)Yes, because it would be equivalent to vitiating his consent by coercion.b)No, because he was free to walk out of the open door if he wished to.c)Yes, because he was being intimidated and hence was being indirectly confined to that room.d)No, because mere apprehension of danger should not have prevented him from leaving the room.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Paragraph: False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification or consent. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. Even if a lecturer locks his class in the lecture room after the usual timefor dismissal has arrived, that is false imprisonment; so, too, if a person be restrained from leaving his own house or any part of it, or be forcibly detained in the public streets. Furthermore, as laid down in the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, any act which fulfills the conditions of a false imprisonment, would still be held to constitute that offence, even if the person who was being falsely imprisoned had no knowledge about the same.Under English Law, however, the police have been empowered to arrest and detain a person under principles of prompt investigation, for such purposes as gaining evidence or taking statements, under the conditions set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, Code G. In the United Kingdom, a case was brought to the High Court concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "kettling", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus for several hours without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not even involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. A ruling by the House of Lords declared that even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.Q. In reference to the passage, would warning a person of grieve consequences if he decided to step out of an unlocked room, amount to false imprisonment?a)Yes, because it would be equivalent to vitiating his consent by coercion.b)No, because he was free to walk out of the open door if he wished to.c)Yes, because he was being intimidated and hence was being indirectly confined to that room.d)No, because mere apprehension of danger should not have prevented him from leaving the room.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Paragraph: False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification or consent. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. Even if a lecturer locks his class in the lecture room after the usual timefor dismissal has arrived, that is false imprisonment; so, too, if a person be restrained from leaving his own house or any part of it, or be forcibly detained in the public streets. Furthermore, as laid down in the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, any act which fulfills the conditions of a false imprisonment, would still be held to constitute that offence, even if the person who was being falsely imprisoned had no knowledge about the same.Under English Law, however, the police have been empowered to arrest and detain a person under principles of prompt investigation, for such purposes as gaining evidence or taking statements, under the conditions set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, Code G. In the United Kingdom, a case was brought to the High Court concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "kettling", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus for several hours without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not even involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. A ruling by the House of Lords declared that even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.Q. In reference to the passage, would warning a person of grieve consequences if he decided to step out of an unlocked room, amount to false imprisonment?a)Yes, because it would be equivalent to vitiating his consent by coercion.b)No, because he was free to walk out of the open door if he wished to.c)Yes, because he was being intimidated and hence was being indirectly confined to that room.d)No, because mere apprehension of danger should not have prevented him from leaving the room.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Paragraph: False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification or consent. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. Even if a lecturer locks his class in the lecture room after the usual timefor dismissal has arrived, that is false imprisonment; so, too, if a person be restrained from leaving his own house or any part of it, or be forcibly detained in the public streets. Furthermore, as laid down in the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, any act which fulfills the conditions of a false imprisonment, would still be held to constitute that offence, even if the person who was being falsely imprisoned had no knowledge about the same.Under English Law, however, the police have been empowered to arrest and detain a person under principles of prompt investigation, for such purposes as gaining evidence or taking statements, under the conditions set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, Code G. In the United Kingdom, a case was brought to the High Court concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "kettling", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus for several hours without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not even involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. A ruling by the House of Lords declared that even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.Q. In reference to the passage, would warning a person of grieve consequences if he decided to step out of an unlocked room, amount to false imprisonment?a)Yes, because it would be equivalent to vitiating his consent by coercion.b)No, because he was free to walk out of the open door if he wished to.c)Yes, because he was being intimidated and hence was being indirectly confined to that room.d)No, because mere apprehension of danger should not have prevented him from leaving the room.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Paragraph: False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification or consent. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. Even if a lecturer locks his class in the lecture room after the usual timefor dismissal has arrived, that is false imprisonment; so, too, if a person be restrained from leaving his own house or any part of it, or be forcibly detained in the public streets. Furthermore, as laid down in the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, any act which fulfills the conditions of a false imprisonment, would still be held to constitute that offence, even if the person who was being falsely imprisoned had no knowledge about the same.Under English Law, however, the police have been empowered to arrest and detain a person under principles of prompt investigation, for such purposes as gaining evidence or taking statements, under the conditions set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, Code G. In the United Kingdom, a case was brought to the High Court concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "kettling", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus for several hours without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not even involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. A ruling by the House of Lords declared that even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.Q. In reference to the passage, would warning a person of grieve consequences if he decided to step out of an unlocked room, amount to false imprisonment?a)Yes, because it would be equivalent to vitiating his consent by coercion.b)No, because he was free to walk out of the open door if he wished to.c)Yes, because he was being intimidated and hence was being indirectly confined to that room.d)No, because mere apprehension of danger should not have prevented him from leaving the room.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Paragraph: False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification or consent. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. Even if a lecturer locks his class in the lecture room after the usual timefor dismissal has arrived, that is false imprisonment; so, too, if a person be restrained from leaving his own house or any part of it, or be forcibly detained in the public streets. Furthermore, as laid down in the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, any act which fulfills the conditions of a false imprisonment, would still be held to constitute that offence, even if the person who was being falsely imprisoned had no knowledge about the same.Under English Law, however, the police have been empowered to arrest and detain a person under principles of prompt investigation, for such purposes as gaining evidence or taking statements, under the conditions set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, Code G. In the United Kingdom, a case was brought to the High Court concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "kettling", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus for several hours without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not even involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. A ruling by the House of Lords declared that even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.Q. In reference to the passage, would warning a person of grieve consequences if he decided to step out of an unlocked room, amount to false imprisonment?a)Yes, because it would be equivalent to vitiating his consent by coercion.b)No, because he was free to walk out of the open door if he wished to.c)Yes, because he was being intimidated and hence was being indirectly confined to that room.d)No, because mere apprehension of danger should not have prevented him from leaving the room.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Paragraph: False imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification or consent. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. Even if a lecturer locks his class in the lecture room after the usual timefor dismissal has arrived, that is false imprisonment; so, too, if a person be restrained from leaving his own house or any part of it, or be forcibly detained in the public streets. Furthermore, as laid down in the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, any act which fulfills the conditions of a false imprisonment, would still be held to constitute that offence, even if the person who was being falsely imprisoned had no knowledge about the same.Under English Law, however, the police have been empowered to arrest and detain a person under principles of prompt investigation, for such purposes as gaining evidence or taking statements, under the conditions set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, Code G. In the United Kingdom, a case was brought to the High Court concerning the alleged unlawful detention of hundreds of members of the public during the May Day riots of 2001 in London, England. The police, using the tactic of "kettling", held a large crowd in Oxford Circus for several hours without allowing anyone to leave. Lois Austin, a peaceful protester who had not broken the law, and Geoffrey Saxby, an innocent passer-by who was not even involved in the demonstration, claimed that they were falsely imprisoned by the London Metropolitan Police and that their detention was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.The pair lost their court action in 2005, when the High Court ruled that the police had not acted unlawfully. An appeal against the ruling also failed in 2007. A ruling by the House of Lords declared that even in the case of an absolute right, the High Court was entitled to take the "purpose" of the deprivation of liberty into account before deciding if human rights law applied at all.Q. In reference to the passage, would warning a person of grieve consequences if he decided to step out of an unlocked room, amount to false imprisonment?a)Yes, because it would be equivalent to vitiating his consent by coercion.b)No, because he was free to walk out of the open door if he wished to.c)Yes, because he was being intimidated and hence was being indirectly confined to that room.d)No, because mere apprehension of danger should not have prevented him from leaving the room.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.