# Trespass to the person: assault, battery, and false imprisonment

> **Key takeaway:** Battery: unlawful force. Assault: apprehension of imminent battery. False imprisonment: total restraint without authority. Actionable per se. Consent/self-defence/lawful authority defend. Collins v Wilcock on contact.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Commercial
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/Commercial/trespass-to-the-person
- **Keywords:** trespass to the person, battery, assault, false imprisonment, Collins v Wilcock, intentional tort, consent, unlawful detention

## What is this about?

Trespass to the person protects bodily integrity and liberty through the intentional torts of assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Unlike negligence, these torts are actionable per se (without proof of damage) and focus on direct interference.

## What is the core rule?

Battery: intentional (or possibly subjective reckless) application of unlawful force to another. Assault: intentional act causing reasonable apprehension of imminent battery. False imprisonment: complete restriction of freedom of movement without lawful authority. Consent, lawful arrest/self-defence, and lawful detention are central defences. Force may be trivial (contact beyond generally acceptable everyday touching) — Collins v Wilcock.

## What are the elements or test?

1. Which tort: assault, battery, and/or false imprisonment?
2. Intentional direct act?
3. Unlawfulness — consent or legal authority?
4. For imprisonment: total restraint (not mere partial obstruction)?
5. Remedies: damages (including aggravated/exemplary in limited cases), injunction

## Which authorities matter?

- **Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172** — Battery and the boundary of acceptable everyday contact; unlawful detention by police on the facts.
- **Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232** — Involuntary/negligent contact claimed in trespass — modern preference to channel negligent injury into negligence.
- **R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans (No 2) [2001] 2 AC 19 (context) / false imprisonment authorities** — False imprisonment can be established without fault as to lawfulness in some detention contexts — check current public-authority lines.
- **Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57 (related)** — Separate tort for intentional infliction of harm by indirect means — not classic trespass but neighbouring intentional tort.

## How does this apply in practice?

Criminal assault/battery overlap on facts but different procedure and standard of proof. Police powers of arrest are statute-heavy (PACE). Medical treatment without consent can be battery. Keep intentional torts distinct from negligence pleading where possible.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Pleading trespass for pure negligent accidents better suited to negligence
- Missing consent in contact sports/medical contexts
- Treating partial blocking of a path as false imprisonment
- Ignoring lawful arrest/self-defence defences

## When would a practitioner use this?

Civil claims for violence, unlawful detention, and workplace restraint incidents.

## Quick reference

Battery: unlawful force. Assault: apprehension of imminent battery. False imprisonment: total restraint without authority. Actionable per se. Consent/self-defence/lawful authority defend. Collins v Wilcock on contact.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*