false imprisonment

Definition of false imprisonment:
1. intentionally
2. causes the plaintiff to be restrained or confined within a particular limited area
3. the restraint is total, with no reasonable means of escape
4. against the plaintiff's will

Inthe current case, there is no doubt that element 2 and 4 will be easilysatisfied. However, the element of intention can relieve the pub ofliability since the staff did not intentionally locked him in.

The case Letang v Cooper[1965] 1 QB 232 laid down the distinction between trespass andnegligence: the former composes of intentional infliction of harm whilethe later concerns unintentional infliction of harm. Since falseimprisonment is a type of trespass to person, there is no doubt itrequires an element of intention.

You may also argue that therestraint is not total in that the door is not locked and that theperson can leave the pub. However, with the alarm in place, thisargument may not be accepted, particularly when you consider Chaytor v London.In this case, the defendant was liable for false imprisonment when asecurity guard wrongly stopped the plaintiff in a shop with theerroneous belief that he committed theft. There was no physicalconfinement; the plaintiff was just asked to stop. Hence, in thecurrent case, it will be hard to argue that the restraint is not total,but you can raise this point nevertheless.

For your information, it is possible for a person to be imprisonedwithout being aware. (Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 2 All ER 521. However, it is obvious this case does not assist you.

If the man being accused as a burglar, he has to do the following:
1) If he has a friend (usually does as a frequent pub visitor) as a witness & proved that he was drunk and how drunk he was that night. Or blood testing (too late).
2) If there were no burglary mark (broke-in) such as door/window breakage.
3) If the pub checked everything is still at its place, nothing being stolen.
He'll be a free man if above were deemed positive.