Malicious Prosecution vs. False Imprisonment
ASSINGMENT 2
With reference to decided cases and other relevant authorities distinguish the tort of malicious prosecution from false imprisonment.
Malicious Prosecution is an action for damages brought by one against whom a civil suit or criminal proceeding has been unsuccessfully commenced without Probable Cause and for a purpose other than that of bringing the alleged offender to justice.
Whereas false imprisonment is a crime in which the perpetrator intentionally restrains another person without having the legal right to do so.
In malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove four elements:
1) that the original case was terminated in favour of the plaintiff,
2) that the defendant played an active role in the original case,
3) that the defendant did not have probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case,
(4) That the defendant initiated or continued the initial case with an Improper purpose.
To recover damages for false imprisonment,
1) An individual must be confined to a substantial degree,
2) with her or his freedom of movement totally restrained
A claim of malicious prosecution is a tort action. The plaintiff in a malicious prosecution suit seeks to win money from the respondent as recompense for the various costs associated with having to defend against the baseless and vexatious case. False imprisonment on the other hand is a common-law felony and a tort. It applies to private as well as governmental detention.
An action for malicious prosecution is distinct from an action for false arrest or false imprisonment. If a person is arrested by a law enforcement officer who lacks legal authority for the arrest, the correct remedy is an action for false arrest. If a person is confined against her or his will, the proper remedy is an action for false imprisonment. An action for malicious prosecution is
With reference to decided cases and other relevant authorities distinguish the tort of malicious prosecution from false imprisonment.
Malicious Prosecution is an action for damages brought by one against whom a civil suit or criminal proceeding has been unsuccessfully commenced without Probable Cause and for a purpose other than that of bringing the alleged offender to justice.
Whereas false imprisonment is a crime in which the perpetrator intentionally restrains another person without having the legal right to do so.
In malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove four elements:
1) that the original case was terminated in favour of the plaintiff,
2) that the defendant played an active role in the original case,
3) that the defendant did not have probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case,
(4) That the defendant initiated or continued the initial case with an Improper purpose.
To recover damages for false imprisonment,
1) An individual must be confined to a substantial degree,
2) with her or his freedom of movement totally restrained
A claim of malicious prosecution is a tort action. The plaintiff in a malicious prosecution suit seeks to win money from the respondent as recompense for the various costs associated with having to defend against the baseless and vexatious case. False imprisonment on the other hand is a common-law felony and a tort. It applies to private as well as governmental detention.
An action for malicious prosecution is distinct from an action for false arrest or false imprisonment. If a person is arrested by a law enforcement officer who lacks legal authority for the arrest, the correct remedy is an action for false arrest. If a person is confined against her or his will, the proper remedy is an action for false imprisonment. An action for malicious prosecution is
References: 3. "False Imprisonment Alleged When Patient Is Detained with Suspicious Rx", found at Article in Pharmacy Times website. Retrieved October 8, 2008. 5.2. 39 Colo.App. 39, 560 P.2d 851 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977 Cases referred to in cited cases: (5) Kawimbe v Attorney-General (1974) Z.R. 244. (6) Attorney-General v Kakoma (1975) Z.R. 212. (7) Attorney-General v Mwaba (1975) Z.R. 218.