This document discusses the tort of trespass to the person, including assault, battery, and false imprisonment. It provides examples from a group assignment where the author and their groupmates acted out scenarios depicting these torts. Assault was demonstrated through threats made by the groupmates, while battery is shown when they punched and restrained the author against their will. False imprisonment occurred when the author was locked in a hidden room without a means of escape. The document analyzes these examples in the context of relevant legal cases and principles regarding intentional interference with a person's rights and establishing liability.

1. For our group assignment, I am doing the topic of trespass to the person. Trespass is one
of the oldest torts. An unlawful act and with intention is a wrongful act that committed in
the elements of tort of trespass. Personal integrity and freedom of movement might be
infringed under the tort of trespass. Tort of trespass to the person are better to said to be
recognized as criminal offences instead of civil charges for such actions. All the elements of
tort of trespass must be including intention, directive and immediate harm. For instance,
hitting a person or warning a person using aggressive words might contribute to a liability of
trespass. Aim of trespass nowadays are more toward vindicate the claimant’s right instead
of providing compensation. Causation link has been established or discovered with the
single action that ones committing an unjustifiable interference with person. Battery,
assault and false imprisonment are the areas of tort of trespass and we should examine and
differentiated.
In our acting part of the video, my group mates are applied assault toward me. Assault
requires no physical contact and using apprehension to harm or hurt others. In our scene of
video, my group mates were forcing me to join them for adverse activities but I refused to
do so they warned me that my family members will be in danger. They were consuming
ecstasy pill which is against the law. In Stephens v Myers (1830), the defendant’s threat was
sufficient to put the plaintiff in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery and the
defendant was held liable. This is simply because advancing of words with intention are
amount to battery. The test of reasonable apprehension is objective one, as long as the
claimant can reasonably apprehend the immediate infliction of force on the person, the
liability was established. If one day in future, my friend warns by others that using words or
apprehension, I will give advise to my friend that he or she can sue the person for assault

2. provided that the act was intentionally and the person having an unlawful personal
violence. Wording alone can contribute to an assault and they may negative threatening the
nature of a gesture or even a pulling action. If the person pointing on my friend and scolding
loudly by using aggressive words to my friend and my friend are hurt and harm by those
wording, I will definitely explain to legal interest of liability for assault to my friend. As the
action itself are direct and with clear intention then there would be sufficient to establish
intent in assault.
Moreover, my group mates also applied battery towards me in our video acting.
According to Winfield & Jolowicz , battery defined as the intentional and direct application
of force to another person. In the scene of the video, my group mates punched me and tied
me up and even pulling to me to the walls with intentional force. Due to the fact that I am
not cooperate with them and they also scare of me that I would have tell others that their
adverse activities. The intention was clear and the action was directive as my group mates
failed to stop me from yelling and some anger resulted from my defense to kick one of
them. In Malaysian Case, Tiong Pik Hiong v Wong Siew Gieu [1964] MLJ 181, the defendant
was found liable in battery for scratching the plaintiff’s face and hitting the plaintiff due to
her jealousy of the plaintiff’s relationship with the defendant’s husband. This is simply
because there is clear and strong intention was established as hatred and anger are with the
defendant. For instance, if the person applying violent blow on my friend’ chest, I would
suggest himor her that it has legal right to sue for the battery as the action itself are clearly
directive and the defendant should have liable to pay damages.

3. Besides, I have also been falsely imprisonment by group mates through the capture of
the video. False imprisonment is the unlawful constraint on the freedom of movement of
another. The elements of false imprisonment must be with intention and the nature of
restraint is total. In our video acting part, my group mates had forced me to the hidden
secure room which there is no alternative route to escape in my way. Without my
knowledge, I have been tied up by them and my movement were restricted to certain
extent. More significantly, if one day in the future, my friend is kidnapping by teacher in a
closed area of the hidden room and without a proper authority or lawful consent, the
teacher will be held liable as the responsibility of a teacher toward his/her student is to take
good care and avoid any accident happen on the children themselves. But if the teacher just
kidnapping the child and do not locked up all the doors, the liability of battery could not be
established as the legal principle is not fulfill with the situations. If there is a reasonable
escape route, then there will be no false imprisonment.
In a nut shell, direct intentional acts of interference are dealt with by the tort of trespass.
As the only defense that I can raise in the threatened part of the scene of the video by my
group mates is that self-defense. Proportionality of the force that applied by the both party
is the only concern to make the defense to be valid and reasonable. For instance, if A punch
B, then B punch A then there would be a fair and proportionate force. The maximum
amount of force apply to another could not be excessive although the law did not require
the defendant to measure the violence or the applied force with mathematical precision. An
act that taken in self-defense situation is basically not a crime and no punishment will be
imposed. So, if one day, A experiences the kick from B, as she or he fear of the injury or kick
and B kick back A and that will be a proportional force against the parties. Self-defense

4. could not be raise. The action of self-defense must only be such as is appropriate to repel
the attack.