QUESTION:
Granger is an aspiring politician and is running for the leader of his political party called the
Change Alliance. However, Granger is known to have controversial views and many persons are
opposed to his run for the leadership position. Granger is a featured speaker at a rally where there
is a large crowd of protesters. The police placed barricades around the entrance to the rally where
all the protesters have gathered to jeer Granger as he walks into the rally. While Granger was
walking into the rally, some protesters began raising their fists in Granger’s direction and
shouting, “Death to Granger! We will hang him!”. However, none of them were able to reach or
touch Granger. Some protesters posing as supporters, who call themselves the “Never-Grangers”
formed a human chain at the end of the walkway and prevented Granger from entering the rally,
they tell Granger to turn around and leave. Granger refuses to turn around and accuses the
“Never-Grangers” of trapping him. Hannah, a staunch Granger supporter, recognizes what the
Never-Grangers were doing and decided to use her handbag and began to strike the
NeverGrangers on their backs and heads. The Never-Grangers sustained bruises and dispersed
allowing Granger into the rally. Meanwhile, Karen who is in a nearby store, is purchasing some
drinks. Due to the commotion outside, the shopkeeper informs the patrons that he will be closing
the store early. In a hurry to cash Karen’s goods, the cashier forgets to give Karen her receipt.
Karen is exiting the store and is stopped by a security guard who asks to see the receipt. When
she tries to explain that she did not get one, the shopkeeper accuses her of stealing and locks the
exit doors. The shopkeeper tells Karen that she will not be permitted to leave unless she paid for
the goods. It was only some 20 minutes after did the cashier come to explain what had happened
and only then was Karen allowed to leave.
Advise Granger, the Never-Grangers, and Karen
ANSWER:
Trespass to the person in tort seeks to protect an individual from infringements of his or
her bodily or personal integrity, against fears of infliction or the infliction of unlawful force-
amounting to assault and battery, and from unlawful restrictions on the freedom of movement of
a person- amounting to false imprisonment. In assault, battery and false imprisonment
perpetrated against the victim, the perpetrator must have intended both the behaviour itself and
the outcomes of their action. The acts must be direct and intentional, if unintentional and
indirect; it would amount to an action in negligence.
The first issue is whether Granger was assaulted by the Never-Grangers by the use of
their words and actions. In tort law, assault is defined as an act which causes the plaintiff to
reasonably apprehend that immediate physical violence will be used on him, meaning that an
assault is committed if the person has reasonable cause to believe that physical violence will be
used against them. Two things must be satisfied in an assault: The defendant must act, and the
effect of the action must be a reasonable expectation of immediate physical violence. The test for
assault is an objective one in that it will be judged based on a reasonable man’s standpoint. In the
case of Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (1985), the claimant refused to join his
Granger is an aspiring politician and is running for the leader of his political party called the
Change Alliance. However, Granger is known to have controversial views and many persons are
opposed to his run for the leadership position. Granger is a featured speaker at a rally where there
is a large crowd of protesters. The police placed barricades around the entrance to the rally where
all the protesters have gathered to jeer Granger as he walks into the rally. While Granger was
walking into the rally, some protesters began raising their fists in Granger’s direction and
shouting, “Death to Granger! We will hang him!”. However, none of them were able to reach or
touch Granger. Some protesters posing as supporters, who call themselves the “Never-Grangers”
formed a human chain at the end of the walkway and prevented Granger from entering the rally,
they tell Granger to turn around and leave. Granger refuses to turn around and accuses the
“Never-Grangers” of trapping him. Hannah, a staunch Granger supporter, recognizes what the
Never-Grangers were doing and decided to use her handbag and began to strike the
NeverGrangers on their backs and heads. The Never-Grangers sustained bruises and dispersed
allowing Granger into the rally. Meanwhile, Karen who is in a nearby store, is purchasing some
drinks. Due to the commotion outside, the shopkeeper informs the patrons that he will be closing
the store early. In a hurry to cash Karen’s goods, the cashier forgets to give Karen her receipt.
Karen is exiting the store and is stopped by a security guard who asks to see the receipt. When
she tries to explain that she did not get one, the shopkeeper accuses her of stealing and locks the
exit doors. The shopkeeper tells Karen that she will not be permitted to leave unless she paid for
the goods. It was only some 20 minutes after did the cashier come to explain what had happened
and only then was Karen allowed to leave.
Advise Granger, the Never-Grangers, and Karen
ANSWER:
Trespass to the person in tort seeks to protect an individual from infringements of his or
her bodily or personal integrity, against fears of infliction or the infliction of unlawful force-
amounting to assault and battery, and from unlawful restrictions on the freedom of movement of
a person- amounting to false imprisonment. In assault, battery and false imprisonment
perpetrated against the victim, the perpetrator must have intended both the behaviour itself and
the outcomes of their action. The acts must be direct and intentional, if unintentional and
indirect; it would amount to an action in negligence.
The first issue is whether Granger was assaulted by the Never-Grangers by the use of
their words and actions. In tort law, assault is defined as an act which causes the plaintiff to
reasonably apprehend that immediate physical violence will be used on him, meaning that an
assault is committed if the person has reasonable cause to believe that physical violence will be
used against them. Two things must be satisfied in an assault: The defendant must act, and the
effect of the action must be a reasonable expectation of immediate physical violence. The test for
assault is an objective one in that it will be judged based on a reasonable man’s standpoint. In the
case of Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (1985), the claimant refused to join his
