Appearances

Mayitpleasethecourt,mynameisMrSunandIamjoinedbyMrLemmon
onbehalfoftheAppellantinthismatter,Bill.Iwillbespeakingfor15
minutesandMrLemmonforafurther15minutes.
Submissions
YourHonourandlearnedcounsels,todaywehaveacasewhichprimarily
involvesaclashofcharactersinvolvingacomplexweboffactsthatwe,as
thecounselstotheAppellantwillbeseekingtoelucidate.Thisisacase
whichwillinvokeourknowledgeoftortlawspecificallythetortsoffalse
imprisonmentandassault.I,astheSeniorCounsel,willbedecipheringthe
roleofconsent,awareness,andreasonablemeansofescapewithinthetort
offalseimprisonment,andmylearnedjuniorcounselwillenlightenthe
Courtonmattersregardingthetortofassaultspecifically,thestringent
factorsthatmustbesatisfiedinordertoproveassaultagainstanindividual.
BeforeIopenmysubmissions,IwouldfirstliketoremindtheCourtofthe
factorsthatconstitutefalseimprisonment.Firstly,adirectlyintentionaland
totaldeprivationofliberty.Thishasclearlybeensatisfiedbythefactsofthis
case,whereinMichellehasactedinaduplicitousnaturetofulfilwhatshe
describedasaprankagainstBillbutwhatwasinfactanacttolockhim
totallywithintheMootCourtwithoutanyreasonablemeansofescape.The
otherfactorsofthistort,awarenessandconsent,aremorecontentiousand
willbediscussedinmysubmissions.
InrelationtothefirstgroundofappealthatoffalseimprisonmentIwill
makethreesubmissions.Thefirstoftheseisfoundedonlearnedtrialjudge
DassssubmissionthatBilldidnotevenknowhewasbeingimprisoned.
WithallduerespecttoJusticeDasssdecision,wesubmit,YourHonour,
thatconsentisabsolutelyimmaterialinprovingacaseoffalse
imprisonment.WehavenotedinpreviouslandmarkcasessuchasMeering
andGrahameWhiteAviationCo(1919)122LT44,suchasStateofSouth
AustraliaandLampardTrevorrow(2010)106SASR331,thatapartys
awarenessofdeprivationoflibertyisnotanelementofthetortoffalse
imprisonment.IfitisallowedbyYourHonour,maytheCounseldispenseof
fullcitationsforthesecasesinfuturereferences?
InMeeringandGrahameWhiteAviationCo,anemployeewasquestioned
onsuspicionoftheftwhilst,unbeknownsttohim,policeofferswere
stationedoutsidetopreventhimfromleaving.InSAandTrevorrow,achild
wasraised,unknowntohim,byfosterparents,anactionsanctionedbythe

government.Thesimilaritybindingthesetwocaseswastheimprisoned
partysabsoluteandtotalunawarenessofhisortheirimprisonment,anditis
thisprinciplethatweturntheattentionoftheCourttotoday.Ofcourse,we
concedethatBillsunawarenessofhisdeprivationoflibertywoulddiminish
hisdamagessoughthowever,unfortunately,thisisnotanissueweare
discussingtoday.Basedontheprincipleoffalseimprisonmentalone,Bills
unawarenessmustnotdisqualifyhisclaimoffalseimprisonment.
Secondly,inthiscaseweseeaRespondentwhoishighlyduplicitousinher
natureandbehaviour,andasaresultweseeanAppellantwhohasbeen
disadvantagedandfacedwithpublichumiliationasaresult.Onceagain
withrespecttolearnedjusticeDass,sheerredinherstatementthatBillhad
givenconsenttobelockedintheMootCourt.Rather,wesubmitthatwhat
Billhadconsentedtodidnotamounttohisimprisonmentinstead,hehad
consentedtoMichellelockinguptheMootCourt,andthusastatewhere,in
Michellesownwordsifhelefttheroom,hewouldntbeabletogetback
in.MichellethenproceededtolockbothdoorsandeffectivelypreventBill
fromescapingorleaving.YourHonour,howcanthispossiblyamountof
Billsconsenttohisimprisonment?WeacknowledgethattheRespondent
maynotecasessuchasBalmainNewFerryCovRobertson(1906)4CLR
379,whereinthedefendantwasjudgedtogivenimpliedconsenttobeing
imprisonedandthuswasnotliabletoacaseoffalseimprisonment.
However,wemustdistinguishthefactsofthisaforementionedcaseandour
caseathandtoday.Intheformercase,therewereclearsignsdisplayed
outsidethewharfstatingthatthedefendantcouldonlyexitbypayinga
certainfee,andthusthedefendanthadgivenhisconsenttothisconditionby
enteringintothewharf.Inourcasetoday,notonlydidMichellenotclearly
indicatetoBillthatshewaslockinghiminsidetheMootCourt,sheindeed
usedmanipulative,duplicitous,anddespicablemethodstodeceivehiminto
asenseofassurednessthathewouldhavebeenabletoleavewhenin
actualityhewasclearlyunable.Forthisreason,wesubmitthatJusticeDass
erredinheridentificationofconsent.
Thirdlyistheissueofthekeyleftintheroom.YourHonour,itisobvious
formthefactsofthecasethatthereneitherAppellantnorRespondentwas
awareofthiskey,andthus,therewasnoreasonablemeansofescapeforour
AppellantBill.Areasonablepersoncouldnothavebeenexpectedtoassume
thattheircouldhavebeenasparekeyleftinaroomwhentheyhadvery
clearlybeentold(inthiscasebyMichelle)thattherewasnootherkeyand
nootherwaytogetbackintooroutoftheCourt.Norcouldareasonable
personhavebeenexpectedtosearchforakeyinsidearoomwhentheywere
notevenawarethatsuchakeyexisted!WeturntheCourtsattention

presentlytothecaseBurtonvDavies[1953]QSR26,whereintheplaintiff
wasjudgedtohavebeenfalselyimprisonedbythedefendantinsideacar,as
thedefendanthaddrivenathighspeedandthustherewasnoviablewayfor
theplaintifftoescapeorjumpoutofthecarwithoutsustaininginjuries.This
casewasclearinitssettingofprecedentprinciplethatfalseimprisonment
mustentailalackofreasonablemethodofescapeforareasonableperson,
andYourHonour,wesubmitthatthisconditionhasbeenclearlymetbythe
circumstancesinthecaseathand.Movingawayfromtheissueofthekey
verybriefly,weconcedethattherewasawindowpresentintheroom
however,thiswindowmusthavedefinitelybeenseveralstoriestallifthe
viewhadbeenblockedbytrees,asismentionedinthecaseandthusonce
againdidnotpresentareasonablemeansofescapewithoutasignificantrisk
ofsevereinjury,analogoustoBurtonvDavies.
Thisnowbringsmetomyconcludingremarks.Wehavepresentedthree
submissionstodayregardingtheerroroflearnedtrialjusticeDassinher
reasoningandjudgementagainsttheappellantsclaimoffalse
imprisonment.WehavesubmittedthatBillsunawarenesswasimmaterial,
thathisconsentwasfoundedonMichellesduplicity,andthathelackedany
reasonablemeansofescape.Forthisreason,wesubmitthatJusticeDasss
trialjudgementmustbeoverturned.
Iftherearenofurtherquestions,yourHonour,thatconcludesmy
submissions.Idefertomylearnedjuniortocontinuethecaseforthe
Appellant.