Yes and no. They can't force-feed. And rightly so. On the reasoning of Lynch you're right given the facts of that case: if you owe a duty of care to prevent suicide you can hardly be under a duty not forcibly to prevent it. But the big word is "if". I have my doubts whether there ought to have been held to be any duty of care whatever: the reasoning for the duty is pretty suspect and question-begging.

Andrew

Quite - it’s very clear from cases like Reeves v Metropolitan Police Comm that the police have a positive duty to intervene to protect detainees health even if they have no consent to do so. No one could have suggested that in that case Mr Lynch would have been the victim of battery of the police had properly restrained him before his tragic death.

Matthew Hoyle
Pupil Barrister
One Essex Court

________________________________
From: Craig Purshouse <C.J.Purshouse@leeds.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:30:00 AM
To: Wright, Richard <rwright@kentlaw.iit.edu>; Peter Radan <peter.radan@mq.edu.au>
Cc: obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Trespass to Person Case

On the substantive law, this case is poorly reasoned. You cannot rely on consent (implied or otherwise) if C lacks capacity (as she clearly did). The same result would have been reached on best interests grounds though.


Dr Craig Purshouse

Lecturer in Law

Mooting and Debating Co-ordinator


1.24 The Liberty Building

University of Leeds, LS2 9JT

T: (0113) 343 5050



________________________________
From: Wright, Richard <rwright@kentlaw.iit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 11:56 PM
To: Peter Radan <peter.radan@mq.edu.au>
Cc: obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Trespass to Person Case

Wow! What a novel and very interesting claim! I look forward to many valuable and interesting comments from the relevant side of the Atlantic, and also some from my own side of the Atlantic, while waiting cowardly in reserve to comment on all posts.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:40 PM Peter Radan <peter.radan@mq.edu.au<mailto:peter.radan@mq.edu.au>> wrote:
Colleagues,
I am not a torts lawyer, but the opening paragraphs of Pile v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2020] EWHC 2472 (QB), caught my attention:

"1. Cheryl Pile brings this appeal to establish the liberty of inebriated English subjects to be allowed to lie undisturbed overnight in their own vomit soaked clothing. Of course, such a right, although perhaps of dubious practical utility, will generally extend to all adults of sound mind who are intoxicated at home. Ms Pile, however, was not at home. She was at a police station in Liverpool having been arrested for the offence of being drunk and disorderly. She had emptied the contents of her stomach all over herself and was too insensible with drink to have much idea of either where she was or what she was doing there. Rather than leave the vulnerable claimant to marinade overnight in her own bodily fluids, four female police officers removed her outer clothing and provided her with a clean dry outfit to wear. The claimant was so drunk that she later had no recollection of these events.

2. It is against this colourful background that she brought a claim against the police in trespass to the person and assault alleging that they should have left her squalidly and unhygienically soaking in vomit. Fortunately, because this appeal will be dismissed, the challenge of assessing damages for this lost opportunity will remain unmet."

Am I wrong to think that Cheryl was a little hard done by on her trespass to person claim?

Peter


Professor Peter Radan,

Honorary Professor, Macquarie University

Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law

BA, LLB, PhD (Syd), Dip Ed (Syd CAE)


Macquarie Law School

6 First Walk,

Macquarie University, NSW, 2109

Australia

Email: peter.radan@mq.edu.au<mailto:peter.radan@mq.edu.au>


Blog: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.allaboutnothing.info%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7CA.M.Tettenborn%40Swansea.ac.uk%7C79ba3ce700aa4065159a08d85f99c8ba%7Cbbcab52e9fbe43d6a2f39f66c43df268%7C0%7C1%7C637364461401402704&amp;sdata=%2BpsZm8JNq5AuFn01GVan5TBA0kLfQy6953oa%2BT44KnI%3D&amp;reserved=0

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.symanteccloud.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7CA.M.Tettenborn%40Swansea.ac.uk%7C79ba3ce700aa4065159a08d85f99c8ba%7Cbbcab52e9fbe43d6a2f39f66c43df268%7C0%7C1%7C637364461401402704&amp;sdata=nuIpjGw%2BK0bmhp0KxfYVFFsM6Q94qodFZVhdHnBqQno%3D&amp;reserved=0
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.symanteccloud.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7CA.M.Tettenborn%40Swansea.ac.uk%7C79ba3ce700aa4065159a08d85f99c8ba%7Cbbcab52e9fbe43d6a2f39f66c43df268%7C0%7C1%7C637364461401402704&amp;sdata=nuIpjGw%2BK0bmhp0KxfYVFFsM6Q94qodFZVhdHnBqQno%3D&amp;reserved=0
______________________________________________________________________