3

It’s well established that a person who pleads unlawful imprisonment does not need to prove that they should have been free. It is for the imprisoning party to justify their act.

How, if at all, does this affect the order of oral evidence? Should the witnesses of the defence also go first?

What, in any case, is best practice for timetabling witnesses? Who should go first and who should go last? Please broaden your answers in this second part to compare against a claim which does not involve imprisonment.

Please also provide references and case law, where possible.

Thanks everyone! Let me know if you need anything further from me

Josh collins
  • 33
  • 2

1 Answers1

1

It is generally the case that the party seeking relief goes first, and the party defending the claim goes second, sometimes with rebuttal and even sur-rebuttal evidence presented after that. (Of course, sometimes witnesses are taken out of order for logistical reasons related to convenience for the witnesses.)

The claimant needs to prove a prima facie case that they were imprisoned and suffered damages as a result, and will generally offer up evidence to show that the imprisonment was unlawful, even though the ultimate burden of proof on the affirmative defense of justification for the imprisonment is on the defendant.

Keep in mind that there will have been a pre-trial exchange of evidence so the matters that will be presented at trial will not be a mystery to either party. Also, the claimant can (and often will) call hostile witnesses in their opening case.

The rules on order of presentation are not different from the usual rules in a false imprisonment case.

ohwilleke
  • 249,340
  • 16
  • 487
  • 868