Wrongs By Safi Jimba
False imprisonment (and slander) V
Continued from last Monday
The plaintiff instituted proceedings to recover damages for slander and false imprisonment, alleging that the defendant uttered words defamatory of her when she (the defendant), went with the police to her house with the search warrant. The witnesses to whom the defamatory statement was alleged to have been uttered gave differing versions of the words.
Held: (1) That the temporary restriction of the plaintiff’s liberty following the issue of a search warrant by the magistrate amounted to imprisonment for which the defendant was not liable, as the issue of a search warrant, which is a judicial act, is within the discretion of the magistrate; Hope v. Evered (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 338;
(2) That on the evidence, the alleged slander and the innuendo pleaded had not been established.
IRWIN J.:
“While no charge can, in my view, be said to have been formulated by the defendant, the present case appears to me to be governed by the law as stated by Willis J. in Austin v. Dowling (1970) L.R.5.C.P. 543) WHICH WAS FOLLOWED IN Sewell v. National Telephone Co. (1907) 1 K.B 557). Here also ‘the opinion and judgment of a judicial officer’ were interposed between the defendant’s report to the police and the subsequent imprisonment.”
Case dismissed
