Understanding IRAC Method And Torts Law In Australia

Overview of the IRAC Method

1.Explain the IRAC Method.

2.Using the IRAC method, explain why Davies may or may not be successful in any of these actions.

The IRAC is a format, usually used for briefing different law cases. The IRAC generally divides a case law into four different sections. IRAC is an abbreviated form of the method where, I stand for ISSUE, R stands for RELEVANT RULE, A stands for APPLICATION and C stands for CONCLUSION.

Firstly, the issue section states the various issues of the case, which is to be addressed by a court of law. Secondly, the relevant rule section provides all the rules, principles and sections of law, which are relevant to the particular case. Thirdly, in the application section the relevant rules and principles of law, discussed in the relevant rule section is applied to the given case and this section states how such relevant rules and principles of law are related to the facts of the particular case. Lastly, the conclusion section addresses the issues provided in the ISSUE section and concludes by stating how the relevant rules and principles of law, applied in the particular case solve such issues.

Thus, the IRAC format is a method by which a particular case can be summarized under these four sections and states the minutes of a case in details.

The issue in this case is to determine whether Davies will be successful in suing Mahama Ibrahim and the Senior Constable under torts in trespass for causing battery, assault and false imprisonment under the Law of Torts.

In Australia, assault, battery and false imprisonment is treated under the law of torts. It is considered as a part of expansive tort of negligence. Neither does the Australian Constitution create or form rights in torts nor does it authorize any conduct that would constitute a tort. In torts, when a person injures another person with an intent to harm it is known as an intentional tort[1]. This legal claim consist the involvement of battery, assault and false imprisonment. There are three chief forms of trespass. They are battery, assault and false imprisonment. The common component between these three kinds is that the wrong should not be committed by indirect means. The acts of trespass to the person are usually categorized as crimes as well as torts. Assault is defined as an intentional threat that instills fear or causes imminent physical harm to an individual. Physical touching may not be involved in the case of assault. For instance, if one person strikes another on the arm or breast, it will not be regarded as an assault but if one person intentionally strikes one person and misses, it will be treated as an assault. When a person raises his hand in a threatening manner, it is known as an assault. It does not matter whether any kind of force is directly applied to any human body. The term battery in torts is explained as when a person uses force against another person without their consent. Physical contact is needed for committing this kind of tort. It indirectly includes an assault, which is an overt act evidencing an intention to commit a battery[2]. The only difference between assault and battery is that the concept of physical contact. Battery requires actual contact with the body of another person. Lastly, false imprisonment refers to a situation when a person prevents another person from moving from any place without consent. The term is referred to as a tort of strict liability and therefore the plaintiff is not required to prove fault on the part of the defendant. The confinement must be non-consensual and intentional on behalf of the wrongdoer. It generally includes the victim that is Davis in the given study should have the knowledge that he was held wrongfully without consent. If an individual needs to cover for the damages for false imprisonment, he must be detained to a substantial degree with his or her freedom of movement. There are exceptional cases as well. For example, if X enters a room and Y prevents him from exiting through one exit but does not restrict him from leaving through the way he came in, Y will not be liable for committing false imprisonment. An individual causing false imprisonment has the right to sue for damages for the interference done by another person on his right to freedom[3]. If the individual has suffered severe damages like physical injuries, mental sufferings and loss of earnings and can proof them then he or she will be compensated.

The Concept of Torts Law in Australia

According to the case of R v Venna, the defendants were rooting disturbance with others in the morning by shouting and bashing the lids of the dustbins. Police were called and arrested all four of them. They were trying to get grasp from the policemen instead they were forcibly taken to the police station. The defendant had fought violently with the police officers and was also kicking indiscriminately. Later, the defendant claimed that he was arrested falsely and also were hit on the chin and got hammered to the ground. The defendant appealed there was a misdirection in that and stated that the mental element of recklessness was enough for constituting the battery involved in assault. The Court held that an assault was not instituted by proof of a deliberate act that gave rise to the consequences, which were not intended in this case[4]. Conviction was upheld and there was no misdirection.

In the case of R v Lamb, two boys were observed playing with a revolver. It was noticed that there were two bullets kept in the chamber but neither of them were placed opposite the barrel. The gun was pointed by one of the boys and the trigger was pulled. After doing that, immediately the chamber turned and the gun went off and killed the boy. In such a case, the court came to a decision stating that there was no unlawful act since any assault was committed as the victim did not have the knowledge that the gun would go off[5]. Therefore, he did not take into account an unlawful personal violence.

In the case of DPP v K, a student took acid from a science lesson. He placed it into a hot air hand drier in the boys washroom. Another boy entered the washroom and used the hand drier. The nozzle of the drier was placed upwards and the acid thereafter squirted into his face and caused permanent marks and scars. The decision of the court stated that the application force was not applied directly. There was no direct physical harming in this case.

According to the case of R v Hester, the appellant was a police officer who got engaged with a criminal venture that involved blackmail of two rich businesspersons who had provided services to the industry of construction. A business meeting was arranged where one of the business partner were attacked by a gang and was falsely imprisoned in a room. Thereafter, his partner got a call from Phillips and was blackmailed to pay the amount to the appellant. However, he was convicted of blackmail and was claimed to be involved in the criminal enterprise. The demand for money was already made and he could not be held liable for making demands. The Court held that the conviction for blackmail was upheld. The demand mentioned above amounted to a continuing act and does not end until the threat ceases. Therefore, this case included the case of assault and false imprisonment. One of the appellant, Scragg was assaulted that is he was threatened. He was also imprisoned falsely as stated above in the case.

Assault, Battery, and False Imprisonment in Torts Law

In the case of State of New South Wales v Jayson Williamson, the respondent sued the State of New South Wales in the District Court of New South Wales for the damages that caused trespassing to the person and false imprisonment. The defendant stated that the State will be held responsible and liable for the actions and activities of the police officers who had thrown him on the ground and confined him in a police wagon. An appeal was made but it got dismissed by the High Court. The Court held that if the amount claimed for personal injury that does not include a claim for damages for false imprisonment it would commonly include damages for deprivation of liberty. The matter was settled by the by a lump sum amount and could not be attributed between the claim for trespass and for false imprisonment[6].

However, the tort of assault, battery and false imprisonment is treated as one of the most serious and severe form of human rights violation. Speedy judgments must be given by the courts in the cases of assault and battery specially. Suitable compensation should be provided to the claimant who has faced the damages. The Court needs to offer reasons for the decision taken by it in written[7]. The reasons must contain why the court has chosen to follow the decision. Not every judgment must have identical facts. The Australian Constitution contains the fundamental rights that can be both implied and expressed for the Australians to enjoy.

It has been provided in the scenario that Davis and James were attending a Melbourne Cup party on a boat in the Sydney Harbor. After the party was over, Davis, James and two of their friends called over a cab to get back to the Rocks. Mr. Mahama Ibrahim drove the cab. While going to the Rocks, an argument broke out between Davis and the cab driver for Mahama took to the wrong route. According to Mahama, Davis being racial had punched him at the back of his head and threatened to beat him up more. Mahama pulled over by seeing a police highway patrol car. By seeing so Davis tried to run away but caught by the Senior Constable since Mahama Ibrahim complained. The Senior Constable caught him because of Mahama’s report of assault. Davis was then arrested by applying physical force. According to Davis, he was forced into a concrete wall and a pavement. Both the officers exercised force on him and restrained him lawfully. Later the Senior Constable pointed out his gun at Davis and threatened him. Due to such behavior of the Constable, Davis claimed that he suffered from physical injuries and his ribs got fractured. He also stated that he went through a traumatic stress disorder since a gun was pointed at him. Due to the gun, Davis assumed that he was going to die. After all these activities, the Senior Constable asked Mahama if he wanted to file any charges against Davis. Mahama Ibrahim expressed his opinions by saying no. Thereafter, the police released Davis after detaining him in the police station for hours. It can be observed from the scenario that it is a case of assault, battery and false imprisonment. After being released by the police, he wanted to sue the Senior Constable and other policemen for assaulting him and restraining him falsely for several hours. According to the relevant rule or law, it is examined that the police officers had arrested him since there was a complaint against him. They had to take Davis forcibly to the police station because he refused to go. Therefore, the police officers had lawful justification for arresting and imprisoning him falsely for quite a few hours. Davis was arrested because he had committed assault and battery to Mahama Ibrahim, the cab driver. Due to this reason, the Police officers arrested him[8]. Davis cannot sue the police officers for in trespassing him under false imprisonment, battery and assault. Although the Senior Constable had pointed gun at him to threaten, which defines assault but he cannot be sued by Davis since he did as it was his job and Davis had committed crimes to an innocent cab driver. Davis did not listen to the police officers when they wanted to arrest him due to whom they had to apply force on him and beat him up. Davis could have sued the police officers for causing physical and mental damage to him if he had provided proof of his injury to the court. Without the proof from the plaintiff, the Court cannot hold the police officers to be liable since police officers can submit evidence to the judges of Davis committing criminal activities under torts. Police officers had lawful justification for causing physical damage to Davis. According to the above mentioned case of R v Venna, the Court cannot held any act to have caused deliberately unless appropriate evidence are published. Therefore, Davis will not be successful in suing the police officers for crimes like assault, battery and false imprisonment. In this given case study, the conduct done by the police officers were not intentional. They were bound to apply force on Davis as Mahama Ibrahim had complained to the police officers stating that he had hit him intentionally, abused him verbally and had threatened him. As mentioned in the relevant rule, battery is an intentional conduct that hurts another person physically without any form of lawful justification.[9]

Relevant Case Law

In this case, it can be applied when Davis had hurt Mahama Ibrahim physically while he was driving. Assault generally refers to an attempt or a threat by hurting another person. Actual physical contact is not essential in committing assault. As observed, Davis had threatened Mahama Ibrahim and in return he was threatened by the police officers. Threatening an individual is treated as an assault. False imprisonment refers to a situation where an individual confines or restrains another person in a limited space without any lawful justification[10]. It is evident from the given case study that Davis has not right to sue the police officers under the torts of battery, assault and false imprisonment. Davis was detained for several hours in the police station because Mahama Ibrahim had not given his verdict on whether he wishes to file charges against Davis. Later when he did, Davis was released by the police officers. They forcefully detained Davis in the prison because there was a complaint against him by the cab driver, Mahama Ibrahim. Even though Davis suffered injuries and trauma due to the behavior of the police officers but it was his fault that made him going through it. Due to the damages Davis claimed for damages and wanted to sue the police officers on charges like assault, battery and false imprisonment.

Conclusion:

Therefore, in this given study, it can be concluded that Davis cannot be successful in suing the police officers in trespass on the charges of assault, battery and false imprisonment since the police officers did not force him unreasonably and they had a lawful justification for detaining him. Another reason of why Davis cannot sue the Senior Constable and other officers is that he being the plaintiff did not provide evidence of his condition. However, Davis cannot claim for the damages as well since there was a complaint against him on assault and battery by the cab driver, Mahama Ibrahim.

References:

Boag, Nick, Jeremy King, and Merys Williams. “Police accountability in Australia: Complaint mechanisms and civil litigation.” Precedent (Sydney, NSW) 143 (2017): 14.

Ciocchetti, Corey. “7 Things You Need to Know About: Torts (Lecture Slides).” (2015).

DPP v K (a minor)[1990] 1 WLR 1067

Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, Alan Beckley, and Melissa Martin. “Complaints against the New South Wales Police Force: analysis of risks and rights in reported police conduct.” Australian Journal of Human Rights 20.2 (2014): 81-105.

Goodwin, D. “Inhibiting economic coercion by groups: an examination of the economic torts and anti-secondary boycott laws in Australia.” (2017).

Hunter, Jill, et al. “The Trial: Principles, Process and Evidence.” LAW INSTITUTE JOURNAL (2016).

Mendelson, Danuta. The new law of Torts. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Miller, Ted R., Mark A. Cohen, and Delia Hendrie. “Noneconomic damages due to physical and sexual assault: estimates from civil jury awards.” Forensic Science and Criminology 2.1 (2017): 1-10.

Mullins, Gerard, and Susan Griffiths. “Intentional torts and the civil liability legislation.” Precedent (Sydney, NSW) 130 (2015): 15.

New South Wales v Williamson[2012] HCA 57

R v Hester [2007] EWCA Crim 2127

R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981

R v Venna [1975] 3 WLR 737

Tamblyn, Nathan. The Law of Duress and Necessity: Crime, Tort, Contract. Routledge, 2017.

Vines, Prue. “Comparing Tort and Crime: Learning from across and within Legal Systems.” (2016): 273.