Application across the book’s scenarios
| Scenario | Possible false-imprisonment analysis |
|---|---|
| Care home | Locked exits, constant guarding, threats of immediate physical prevention or control of every practicable exit may amount to complete restraint if intentional and unjustified. Capacity authorisation or other lawful authority must be checked. |
| Sheltered housing | A tenancy does not permit staff to lock a tenant in. However, an inaccessible building or unavailable transport is not automatically intentional total restraint by an identified defendant. |
| Home care | Withholding every indispensable means of exit may be relevant where the defendant controls those means and intends complete restraint. Unsafe or exhausting access caused by inadequate support may instead sound in care, equality or human-rights law. |
| Community transport | Refusing to let a person leave a vehicle or venue can be direct restraint. Reasonable emergency action, consent and lawful authority require examination. |
| Child removal | Taking or retaining a child without operative authority can raise restraint issues; a valid order usually supplies justification while effective. |
| What would usually be insufficient | Partial obstruction, no intention to restrain, physical inability caused only by disability, or a valid legal authorisation covering the restraint. |
False imprisonment is the intentional and complete restraint of a person’s freedom of movement without lawful justification. No locked door is essential, but partial obstruction is insufficient. Article 5 deprivation of liberty, false imprisonment and functional immobility caused by inadequate care are related but not interchangeable concepts.
Constructive restraint by omission
Withholding every indispensable means of departure may contribute to complete restraint where the omission is legally attributable to a defendant who intends the restraint. A person who cannot leave safely because support was denied may instead have a strong Care Act, equality or Article 8 case without proving false imprisonment.
Child removal
Taking or retaining a child without an operative court order or statutory power may raise false-imprisonment questions if complete restraint and intention are proved. A valid order usually supplies lawful authority until stayed, varied, discharged or set aside; later criticism of evidence does not automatically erase its legal effect for the whole earlier period.
Evidence
Identify every exit or means of return, the act or attributable omission causing total restraint, the defendant’s intention, duration, consent, capacity, court order, emergency power and any point at which authority began or ended.