| 单词 | Unlawful restraint |
| 释义 | 非法限制 Confining the liberty of another person without lawful justification, authority or consent. It is an element of the criminal charge of ‘false imprisonment’: R v Chan Wing Kuen & Anor [1995] 1 HKC 470 (CA). A summary offence is committed when a person has in his possession any wrist restraint or other instrument or article manufactured for the purpose of physically restraining a person, any handcuffs or thumbcuffs, any offensive weapon, or any crowbar, picklock, skeleton key or other instrument fit for unlawful purposes, with intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose: Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap 228) s 17. For an adult, a detention in the absence of a lawful order in some form or an act of detention which is not justified under statute (such as pursuant to a right to arrest) is generally unlawful: Migotti v Colvill (1879) 4 CPD 233 (CA). The burden of proof rests on the applicant to show that there is a prima facie case that the detention is unlawful, and the burden then passes to the restraining body or person to show that the restraint is lawful: Khawaja v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1984] AC 74, [1983] 1 All ER 765 (HL). The writ of habeas corpus provides an immediate, expeditious and effective machinery for vindicating and securing the liberty of the subject by a court order releasing him from any manner of unlawful or unjustifiable detention or restraint: Re Goldsworthy (1875) 2 QBD 75 (DC). Where the restraint is total and not merely partial, a plaintiff may have an action against a defendant in the tort of false imprisonment, which protects a plaintiff’s interest in freedom from confinement: Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742. The proper course to pursue to obtain redress against the person guilty of unlawful restraint is an action for damages for false imprisonment, but it does not necessarily follow that because a person has been released on his successful application for a writ of habeas corpus he will succeed in an action for damages for false imprisonment: Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118, [1974] 3 All ER 776 (CA). Whether there has been an unlawful restraint is a question of fact. See also False imprisonment. 在沒有合法理由、權限或同意的情況下限制另一人的自由。非法限制是刑事控罪「非法禁錮」的元素之一：R v Chan Wing Kuen & Anor [1995] 1 HKC 470（上訴法庭）。任何人管有任何腕銬或其他為束縛人身而製造的工具或物件，或管有任何手銬、指銬、攻擊性武器、撬棍、撬鎖工具、百合匙或其他適合作非法用途的工具，意圖將其作任何非法用途使用，即犯循簡易程序審訊的罪行：《簡易程序治罪條例》（第228章）第17條。就成年人而言，在沒有若干形式的合法命令下的拘留、或在法規下（例如按照逮捕的權利）沒有充分理由支持的拘留行為，一般屬於非法：Migotti v Colvill (1879) 4 CPD 233（上訴法院）。申請人負有舉證責任證明有關的拘留有表面證據顯示屬於非法，其後舉證責任會轉移到作出束縛的機構或人，以證明有關的束縛屬合法：Khawaja v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1984] AC 74, [1983] 1 All ER 765（上議院）。人身保護令狀提供一套直接、迅速且有效的機制，即可藉法庭命令證明及確保束縛的對象可獲得自由，以解除他受到任何形式的非法或沒有充分理據支持的拘留或束縛：Re Goldsworthy (1875) 2 QBD 75（英國地方法院）。如有關的束縛是完全而並非僅屬局部的束縛，則原告人可就非法禁錮的侵權行為提出針對被告人的訴訟，該訴訟保障原告人免受囚禁而享有自由的權益：Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742。就非法禁錮要求獲得損害賠償訴訟，屬針對犯有非法束縛的人追索獲得糾正方法的適當途徑，但不一定要依循該途徑，因為就成功申請人身保護令狀而獲釋的人，他會在就非法禁錮要求獲得損害賠償的訴訟中勝訴：Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118, [1974] 3 All ER 776（芵國上訴法院）。是否曾經有非法束縛屬事實的問題。另見 False imprisonment。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。