Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on." -- Samuel Goldwyn


aus+uk / aus.legal / Re: Fire stair doors

SubjectAuthor
* Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
+* Re: Fire stair doorsMax
|`- Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
+* Re: Fire stair doorsMountain Magpie
|`- Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
+* Re: Fire stair doorsPhil Allison
|`- Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
`* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
 +* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
 |`* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
 | `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
 |  +* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
 |  |`* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
 |  | `* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
 |  |  `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
 |  |   `* Re: Fire stair doorsMax
 |  |    +* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
 |  |    |`* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
 |  |    | `* Re: Fire stair doorsMax
 |  |    |  `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
 |  |    |   `* Re: Fire stair doorsMax
 |  |    |    `- Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
 |  |    `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
 |  |     `* Re: Fire stair doorsMax
 |  |      `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
 |  |       `* Re: Fire stair doorsMax
 |  |        `- Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
 |  `* Re: Fire stair doorsPhil Allison
 |   `- Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
 `* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
  `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
   +- Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
   `* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
    `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
     `* Re: Fire stair doorsMax
      `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
       `* Re: Fire stair doorsMax
        `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
         `* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
          `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
           `* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
            `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
             `* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
              `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
               `* Re: Fire stair doorsMax
                `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
                 `* Re: Fire stair doorsMax
                  +- Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
                  `* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
                   `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
                    `* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
                     `* Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed
                      `* Re: Fire stair doorsSylvia Else
                       `- Re: Fire stair doorsRod Speed

Pages:123
Re: Fire stair doors

<snf1kn$qio$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4571&group=aus.legal#4571

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 14:09:10 +1100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <snf1kn$qio$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <ivtpu6Fbs6pU1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtqc8FbtncU1@mid.individual.net> <ivttbfFcf0pU1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtvqmFcss6U1@mid.individual.net> <ivu13iFd405U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivu1m9Fd75fU1@mid.individual.net> <ivu4a9Fdmi7U1@mid.individual.net>
<sncmk2$kdu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ivu5u1FdutlU1@mid.individual.net>
<ivuasjFer2sU1@mid.individual.net> <sneo46$4bo$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j008j0Fq6ctU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="27224"; posting-host="JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.2
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Mon, 22 Nov 2021 03:09 UTC

On 22/11/2021 12:03 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>> Max wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Its far from clear that NSW hospitals have to comply with that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocks the door upon the activation of any sprinkler
>>>>>>>>>>>>> system (other than a FPAA101D system) complying with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other detector system
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1 installed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the building, and is readily openable when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this option to be used,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd be wrong and security is a compelling reason anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it limits the availability of the exits to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem is that a system failure isn't false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't a system failure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes it was.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There was a decision to stop the lifts,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That was the system failure, having the sensor stop the lifts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and knowledge that there was no other way to leave the
>>>>>>>>>>> seventh floor.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That’s bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That the decision was motivated by some failure is neither
>>>>>>>>>>> here nor there.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. That’s why it was a system failure and not
>>>>>>>>>> criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Same with the trains which after a crash need someone to
>>>>>>>>>> enable the unlocking by a passenger.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Failure of a lift isn't criminal false imprisonment either. Or
>>>>>>>>>> not being able to get out of a car after a car crash either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The lift didn't fail. It was turned off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the system. not by a human, so it isn't criminal false
>>>>>>>> imprisonment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We don't know whether the lift was turned off automatically, but
>>>>>>> even if it was - so what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it was it isn't criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's still implementing the will of the hospital management.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But isn't criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the hospital management are shown to have any knowledge that the
>>>>> imprisonment will occur in those circumstances, or were reckless or
>>>>> negligent about the risk of it occurring, then they might be at fault.
>>>
>>>> The common law requirement for the mental element seems to be "intent",
>>>
>>> And there is no intent to imprison, so no criminal false imprisonment.
>>>
>>>> with recklessness not being sufficient.  But I don't think that ever
>>>> meant an intent for the specific outcome,
>>>
>>> Corse it does with criminal false imprisonment.
>>>
>>>> or it would have been very easy to avoid conviction.
>>>
>>> And is in this situation with your desperate
>>> claim that its criminal false imprisonment.
>>>
>>>> Intent to perform the causing action, together with knowledge of
>>>> what the outcome will be, must surely be enough.
>>>
>>> Nope, not when there was never any intent to IMPRISON.
>>>
>>>> "M'lud, yes I intended to cut the tree branch, and I knew that Fred
>>>> would fall off, and likely die, if I did, but my intent was that the
>>>> branch fall, not that Fred would."
>>>
>>> Irrelevant to the situation being discussed.
>>> Their intent was clearly to make things safer
>>> for anyone on that floor not to imprison them.
>>>
>>>> Most of the common law was devised long before automation was even
>>>> imagined, but I'd be surprised if one can avoid the intent element
>>>> by interposing an automated system that performs the action in
>>>> accordance with one's intent.
>>>
>>> You still have the problem that there was
>>> never ever any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>
>>> The intent was to make things safer for those on that floor.
>
>> If the intent was to keep the fire doors locked
>
> It isn't.
>
>> then how is that making it safer, if the person wants to get out?
>
> The lift is turned off by the system when the sprinklers or sensor detects
> fire so you don’t get trapped in the lift with the building on fire. The
> staff are sposed to unlock the fire doors but failed to do that, likely
> because the receptionist fucked up knowing where the key was.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Fire stair doors

<snf1nt$qio$2@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4572&group=aus.legal#4572

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 14:10:53 +1100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <snf1nt$qio$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <ivtpu6Fbs6pU1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtqc8FbtncU1@mid.individual.net> <ivttbfFcf0pU1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtvqmFcss6U1@mid.individual.net> <ivu13iFd405U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivu1m9Fd75fU1@mid.individual.net> <ivu4a9Fdmi7U1@mid.individual.net>
<sncmk2$kdu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ivuaa8Feo2dU1@mid.individual.net>
<sneo9c$4bo$2@gioia.aioe.org> <j008s0Fq7ujU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="27224"; posting-host="JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.2
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Mon, 22 Nov 2021 03:10 UTC

On 22/11/2021 12:08 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Its far from clear that NSW hospitals have to comply with that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> which it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically
>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocks the door upon the activation of any sprinkler system
>>>>>>>>>>>> (other than a FPAA101D system) complying with Specification
>>>>>>>>>>>> E1.5 or smoke, or any other detector system deemed suitable
>>>>>>>>>>>> in accordance with AS 1670.1 installed throughout the
>>>>>>>>>>>> building, and is readily openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for
>>>>>>>>>>>> this option to be used,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You'd be wrong and security is a compelling reason anyway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> because it limits the availability of the exits to those
>>>>>>>>>>>> specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how
>>>>>>>>>>>> short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem is that a system failure isn't false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't a system failure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes it was.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There was a decision to stop the lifts,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That was the system failure, having the sensor stop the lifts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and knowledge that there was no other way to leave the seventh
>>>>>>>>>> floor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That’s bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That the decision was motivated by some failure is neither
>>>>>>>>>> here nor there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. That’s why it was a system failure and not
>>>>>>>>> criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Same with the trains which after a crash need someone to enable
>>>>>>>>> the unlocking by a passenger.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Failure of a lift isn't criminal false imprisonment either. Or
>>>>>>>>> not being able to get out of a car after a car crash either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The lift didn't fail. It was turned off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the system. not by a human, so it isn't criminal false
>>>>>>> imprisonment.
>>>>>
>>>>>> We don't know whether the lift was turned off automatically, but
>>>>>> even if it was - so what?
>>>>>
>>>>> If it was it isn't criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's still implementing the will of the hospital management.
>>>>>
>>>>> But isn't criminal false imprisonment.
>>>
>>>> If the hospital management are shown to have any knowledge that the
>>>> imprisonment will occur in those circumstances,
>>>
>>> It isn't imprisonment, its doing what is safer.
>>>
>>>> or were reckless or negligent about the risk of it occurring,
>>>
>>> Still not imprisonment.
>>>
>>>> then they might be at fault.
>>>
>>> But not guilty of criminal false imprisonment.
>
>> If there is an intention that the fire doors are permanently locked
>
> There isn't. If there was they would be bordered up, not permanently
> locked.
>
>> then that would be an intention to imprison the person
>
> Nope, just disable the lift so it isn't possible to
> be trapped in the lift with the building on fire.
>
>> in certain circumstances, for no valid reason.
>
> There is a perfectly valid reason, so no one
> is trapped in the lift with the building on fire.
>
> And there is obviously sposed to be a key to unlock the fire door.
>

They shouldn't be locked. What if the receptionist was out on a lunch
break and there was a fire. It's negligent actions on the part of
management who are setting the procedure.

> So no criminal false imprisonment, just a fuckup with the key.

Re: Fire stair doors

<j00hghFrnnjU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4573&group=aus.legal#4573

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 14:35:40 +1100
Lines: 166
Message-ID: <j00hghFrnnjU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <ivtpu6Fbs6pU1@mid.individual.net> <ivtqc8FbtncU1@mid.individual.net> <ivttbfFcf0pU1@mid.individual.net> <ivtvqmFcss6U1@mid.individual.net> <ivu13iFd405U1@mid.individual.net> <ivu1m9Fd75fU1@mid.individual.net> <ivu4a9Fdmi7U1@mid.individual.net> <sncmk2$kdu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ivu5u1FdutlU1@mid.individual.net> <ivuasjFer2sU1@mid.individual.net> <sneo46$4bo$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j008j0Fq6ctU1@mid.individual.net> <snf1kn$qio$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 1GZcQMtNUWclQ93Pl8y05AkX5jVDDJGq9PGo8YFtw6n4GZVIY=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qj1o6lSJya5kPjO/fwrIwzS+e/o=
In-Reply-To: <snf1kn$qio$1@gioia.aioe.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Mon, 22 Nov 2021 03:35 UTC

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its far from clear that NSW hospitals have to comply with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the door upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than a FPAA101D system) complying with Specification E1.5 or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smoke, or any other detector system deemed suitable in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accordance with AS 1670.1 installed throughout the building,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and is readily openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option to be used,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd be wrong and security is a compelling reason anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it limits the availability of the exits to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem is that a system failure isn't false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't a system failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it was.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a decision to stop the lifts,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That was the system failure, having the sensor stop the lifts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and knowledge that there was no other way to leave the seventh
>>>>>>>>>>>> floor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That’s bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That the decision was motivated by some failure is neither here
>>>>>>>>>>>> nor there.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. That’s why it was a system failure and not
>>>>>>>>>>> criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Same with the trains which after a crash need someone to enable
>>>>>>>>>>> the unlocking by a passenger.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Failure of a lift isn't criminal false imprisonment either. Or
>>>>>>>>>>> not being able to get out of a car after a car crash either.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The lift didn't fail. It was turned off.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By the system. not by a human, so it isn't criminal false
>>>>>>>>> imprisonment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We don't know whether the lift was turned off automatically, but
>>>>>>>> even if it was - so what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it was it isn't criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's still implementing the will of the hospital management.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But isn't criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the hospital management are shown to have any knowledge that the
>>>>>> imprisonment will occur in those circumstances, or were reckless or
>>>>>> negligent about the risk of it occurring, then they might be at
>>>>>> fault.
>>>>
>>>>> The common law requirement for the mental element seems to be
>>>>> "intent",
>>>>
>>>> And there is no intent to imprison, so no criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>>> with recklessness not being sufficient. But I don't think that ever
>>>>> meant an intent for the specific outcome,
>>>>
>>>> Corse it does with criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>>> or it would have been very easy to avoid conviction.
>>>>
>>>> And is in this situation with your desperate
>>>> claim that its criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>>> Intent to perform the causing action, together with knowledge of what
>>>>> the outcome will be, must surely be enough.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, not when there was never any intent to IMPRISON.
>>>>
>>>>> "M'lud, yes I intended to cut the tree branch, and I knew that Fred
>>>>> would fall off, and likely die, if I did, but my intent was that the
>>>>> branch fall, not that Fred would."
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant to the situation being discussed.
>>>> Their intent was clearly to make things safer
>>>> for anyone on that floor not to imprison them.
>>>>
>>>>> Most of the common law was devised long before automation was even
>>>>> imagined, but I'd be surprised if one can avoid the intent element by
>>>>> interposing an automated system that performs the action in accordance
>>>>> with one's intent.
>>>>
>>>> You still have the problem that there was
>>>> never ever any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>
>>>> The intent was to make things safer for those on that floor.
>>
>>> If the intent was to keep the fire doors locked
>>
>> It isn't.
>>
>>> then how is that making it safer, if the person wants to get out?
>>
>> The lift is turned off by the system when the sprinklers or sensor
>> detects
>> fire so you don’t get trapped in the lift with the building on fire. The
>> staff are sposed to unlock the fire doors but failed to do that, likely
>> because the receptionist fucked up knowing where the key was.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Fire stair doors

<j00hncFrotuU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4574&group=aus.legal#4574

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 14:39:20 +1100
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <j00hncFrotuU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <ivtpu6Fbs6pU1@mid.individual.net> <ivtqc8FbtncU1@mid.individual.net> <ivttbfFcf0pU1@mid.individual.net> <ivtvqmFcss6U1@mid.individual.net> <ivu13iFd405U1@mid.individual.net> <ivu1m9Fd75fU1@mid.individual.net> <ivu4a9Fdmi7U1@mid.individual.net> <sncmk2$kdu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ivuaa8Feo2dU1@mid.individual.net> <sneo9c$4bo$2@gioia.aioe.org> <j008s0Fq7ujU1@mid.individual.net> <snf1nt$qio$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net UBgnVeFEgrxDJiLnr7uBdQAsKoFODzSaCV+Vncwg+0PTPMiqI=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0Ru9KTS8h7xbB/h07f31Cdv34rU=
In-Reply-To: <snf1nt$qio$2@gioia.aioe.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Mon, 22 Nov 2021 03:39 UTC

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Its far from clear that NSW hospitals have to comply with that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the door upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than a FPAA101D system) complying with Specification E1.5 or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> smoke, or any other detector system deemed suitable in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accordance with AS 1670.1 installed throughout the building,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and is readily openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> option to be used,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd be wrong and security is a compelling reason anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it limits the availability of the exits to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem is that a system failure isn't false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't a system failure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes it was.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There was a decision to stop the lifts,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That was the system failure, having the sensor stop the lifts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and knowledge that there was no other way to leave the seventh
>>>>>>>>>>> floor.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That’s bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That the decision was motivated by some failure is neither here
>>>>>>>>>>> nor there.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. That’s why it was a system failure and not
>>>>>>>>>> criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Same with the trains which after a crash need someone to enable
>>>>>>>>>> the unlocking by a passenger.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Failure of a lift isn't criminal false imprisonment either. Or
>>>>>>>>>> not being able to get out of a car after a car crash either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The lift didn't fail. It was turned off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the system. not by a human, so it isn't criminal false
>>>>>>>> imprisonment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We don't know whether the lift was turned off automatically, but
>>>>>>> even if it was - so what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it was it isn't criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's still implementing the will of the hospital management.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But isn't criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>>> If the hospital management are shown to have any knowledge that the
>>>>> imprisonment will occur in those circumstances,
>>>>
>>>> It isn't imprisonment, its doing what is safer.
>>>>
>>>>> or were reckless or negligent about the risk of it occurring,
>>>>
>>>> Still not imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>>> then they might be at fault.
>>>>
>>>> But not guilty of criminal false imprisonment.
>>
>>> If there is an intention that the fire doors are permanently locked
>>
>> There isn't. If there was they would be bordered up, not permanently
>> locked.
>>
>>> then that would be an intention to imprison the person
>>
>> Nope, just disable the lift so it isn't possible to
>> be trapped in the lift with the building on fire.
>>
>>> in certain circumstances, for no valid reason.
>>
>> There is a perfectly valid reason, so no one
>> is trapped in the lift with the building on fire.
>>
>> And there is obviously sposed to be a key to unlock the fire door.

> They shouldn't be locked.

It remains to be seen why they are.

> What if the receptionist was out on a lunch break and there was a fire.

They don’t do reception like that.

> It's negligent actions on the part of management who are setting the
> procedure.

But not criminal false imprisonment because there
was never any intention to imprison anyone.

>> So no criminal false imprisonment, just a fuckup with the key.

Re: Fire stair doors

<j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4581&group=aus.legal#4581

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 16:55:23 +1100
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net p0ipPRlII8GQg5VcNQJX+wRp2kq1MapFXFPuqvledNd+Nhb6HQ
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MKYX4HwshG8yKBuljAb0psEU4nE=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.0
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net>
 by: Sylvia Else - Tue, 23 Nov 2021 05:55 UTC

On 21-Nov-21 11:44 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16-Nov-21 4:42 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>
>>
>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright unlawful. Either
>> way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it turns out
> is accessible on
>
> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>
> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a bunch of zeros.
>
> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>
> "(iv)
>
> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks the door
> upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other than a FPAA101D
> system) complying with Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other
> detector system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1 installed
> throughout the building, and is readily openable when unlocked; "
>
> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this option to
> be used, because it limits the availability of the exits to those
> specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>
> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a criminal
> offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how short the period of
> imprisonment is.
>
> Sylvia.
>

I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into the common
law offence of false imprisonment.

And made very little progress.

Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of
incidental false imprisonment - is so rare. In every case in the record,
it seems to have been abundantly clear that the specific intent was to
detain someone, so the issue of whether intending to do something else,
with the detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't been a
live one.

I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but been unable
to leave if I wanted to. Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an
implied consent to that. But in a building, never.

Sylvia.

Re: Fire stair doors

<j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4582&group=aus.legal#4582

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 17:05:15 +1100
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net PnCEAsZX6A8Eld8EvSXbmAbQZ4gwTsWnTBEkhWrN/rYUaZf+8=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:a674uyIpi2xn0gv4lnplWY0ri+I=
In-Reply-To: <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Tue, 23 Nov 2021 06:05 UTC

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Sylvia Else wrote
>> Sylvia Else wrote

>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.

>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright unlawful. Either
>>> way, it's a singularly bad idea.

>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it turns out is
>> accessible on

>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/

>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a bunch of
>> zeros.

>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it

>> "(iv)

>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks the door
>> upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other than a FPAA101D
>> system) complying with Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other detector
>> system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1 installed throughout
>> the building, and is readily openable when unlocked; "

>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this option to
>> be used, because it limits the availability of the exits to those
>> specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such requirement.

>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a criminal offence
>> at common law, and it doesn't matter how short the period of imprisonment
>> is.

But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.

> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into the common law
> offence of false imprisonment.

> And made very little progress.

Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.

> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of incidental
> false imprisonment - is so rare.

Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.

> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly clear that
> the specific intent was to detain someone,

And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.

> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with the detention
> being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't been a live one.

Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is lacking.

> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but been unable
> to leave if I wanted to.

Then you need to get out more.

> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent to that.

But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.

> But in a building, never.

Your problem.

Re: Fire stair doors

<j03f1nFe8tdU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4583&group=aus.legal#4583

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 17:12:03 +1100
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <j03f1nFe8tdU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net> <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net VLzcR8VJmNkaRBSZ9fFqAgnqOyAyPgcjTGZW8al5jlbI8OP1s=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ycwvci/lXAxtmVZeE6w6yAHFH0U=
In-Reply-To: <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Tue, 23 Nov 2021 06:12 UTC

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>
>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>
>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright unlawful. Either
>>>> way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>
>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it turns out
>>> is accessible on
>
>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>
>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a bunch of
>>> zeros.
>
>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>
>>> "(iv)
>
>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks the door
>>> upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other than a FPAA101D
>>> system) complying with Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other
>>> detector system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1 installed
>>> throughout the building, and is readily openable when unlocked; "
>
>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this option to
>>> be used, because it limits the availability of the exits to those
>>> specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>
>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a criminal
>>> offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how short the period of
>>> imprisonment is.
>
> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>
>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into the common
>> law offence of false imprisonment.
>
>> And made very little progress.
>
> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>
>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of incidental
>> false imprisonment - is so rare.
>
> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>
>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly clear that
>> the specific intent was to detain someone,
>
> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>
>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with the
>> detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't been a live one.
>
> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is lacking.

>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but been unable
>> to leave if I wanted to.

In fact you have, repeatedly, with international airport arrivals.

And with prison visitors.

> Then you need to get out more.
>
>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent to that.
>
> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>
>> But in a building, never.
>
> Your problem.

Re: Fire stair doors

<j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4584&group=aus.legal#4584

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 18:47:22 +1100
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net wyUGhGDZvoHBuXDdMHlz7gvtAWh6731x45cdTVh9OJvnvmJUoB
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cqUpco/oqHrveYO4mTIljMBGFgE=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.0
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net>
 by: Sylvia Else - Tue, 23 Nov 2021 07:47 UTC

On 23-Nov-21 5:05 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>
>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>
>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright unlawful.
>>>> Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>
>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it turns
>>> out is accessible on
>
>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>
>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a bunch of
>>> zeros.
>
>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>
>>> "(iv)
>
>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks the
>>> door upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other than a
>>> FPAA101D system) complying with Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any
>>> other detector system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1
>>> installed throughout the building, and is readily openable when
>>> unlocked; "
>
>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this option
>>> to be used, because it limits the availability of the exits to those
>>> specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>
>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a criminal
>>> offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how short the period of
>>> imprisonment is.
>
> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>
>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into the common
>> law offence of false imprisonment.
>
>> And made very little progress.
>
> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>
>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of
>> incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>
> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.

None of those have the required intent to do the act that leads to the
detention.

>
>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly clear
>> that the specific intent was to detain someone,
>
> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>

It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.

>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with the
>> detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't been a live one.
>
> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is lacking.

You're assuming the issue that's in question.

>
>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but been
>> unable to leave if I wanted to.
>
> Then you need to get out more.
>
>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent to that.
>
> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>
>> But in a building, never.
>
> Your problem.

Re: Fire stair doors

<j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4585&group=aus.legal#4585

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 19:31:25 +1100
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net> <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net ScS3UScBWCrpylLgNuwEMQ7n3+osg2h24dfB4KPLPowuuapjA=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y8xnp34k09BOLw+KL+dCthEUtSE=
In-Reply-To: <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Tue, 23 Nov 2021 08:31 UTC

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote

>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.

>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright unlawful. Either
>>>>> way, it's a singularly bad idea.

>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it turns out
>>>> is accessible on
>>
>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>
>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a bunch of
>>>> zeros.
>>
>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>
>>>> "(iv)
>>
>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks the door
>>>> upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other than a FPAA101D
>>>> system) complying with Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other
>>>> detector system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1 installed
>>>> throughout the building, and is readily openable when unlocked; "
>>
>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this option to
>>>> be used, because it limits the availability of the exits to those
>>>> specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>
>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a criminal
>>>> offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how short the period of
>>>> imprisonment is.
>>
>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>
>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into the common
>>> law offence of false imprisonment.
>>
>>> And made very little progress.
>>
>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>
>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of
>>> incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>
>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.

> None of those have the required intent to do the act that leads to the
> detention.

Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
and with train doors which require someone to allow them
to be opened when the train has derailed.

>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly clear that
>>> the specific intent was to detain someone,

>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.

> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.

It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.

>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with the
>>> detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't been a live one.

>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is lacking.

> You're assuming the issue that's in question.

No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.

>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but been unable
>>> to leave if I wanted to.

>> Then you need to get out more.

>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent to that.

>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.

>>> But in a building, never.

>> Your problem.

Re: Fire stair doors

<snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4587&group=aus.legal#4587

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 22:06:38 +1100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="4882"; posting-host="JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.2
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Tue, 23 Nov 2021 11:06 UTC

On 23/11/2021 7:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>
>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>
>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright unlawful.
>>>>>> Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>
>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it turns
>>>>> out is accessible on
>>>
>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>
>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a bunch
>>>>> of zeros.
>>>
>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>
>>>>> "(iv)
>>>
>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks the
>>>>> door upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other than a
>>>>> FPAA101D system) complying with Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any
>>>>> other detector system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1
>>>>> installed throughout the building, and is readily openable when
>>>>> unlocked; "
>>>
>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this
>>>>> option to be used, because it limits the availability of the exits
>>>>> to those specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such
>>>>> requirement.
>>>
>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a criminal
>>>>> offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how short the period
>>>>> of imprisonment is.
>>>
>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>
>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into the
>>>> common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>
>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>
>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>
>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of
>>>> incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>
>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>
>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that leads to the
>> detention.
>
> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>
>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly clear
>>>> that the specific intent was to detain someone,
>
>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>
>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>
> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>
>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with the
>>>> detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't been a live one.
>
>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is lacking.
>
>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>
> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>
>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but been
>>>> unable to leave if I wanted to.
>
>>> Then you need to get out more.
>
>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent to that.
>
>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>
>>>> But in a building, never.
>
>>> Your problem.
>
>

If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby keep them
trapped, surely I am guilty of something.

Re: Fire stair doors

<j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4589&group=aus.legal#4589

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 04:24:20 +1100
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net> <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net> <j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net Q/XHTGYa3zSdW5SdrKkeOw18Qqs9HOUhSsGKtiuTIhoVPnvMg=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YgCyKZbchd4TBf4Mr/lVhgoNytw=
In-Reply-To: <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Tue, 23 Nov 2021 17:24 UTC

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote

>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>
>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright unlawful.
>>>>>>> Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>
>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it turns
>>>>>> out is accessible on
>>>>
>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>
>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a bunch of
>>>>>> zeros.
>>>>
>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>
>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>
>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks the
>>>>>> door upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other than a
>>>>>> FPAA101D system) complying with Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any
>>>>>> other detector system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1
>>>>>> installed throughout the building, and is readily openable when
>>>>>> unlocked; "
>>>>
>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this option
>>>>>> to be used, because it limits the availability of the exits to those
>>>>>> specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>
>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a criminal
>>>>>> offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how short the period of
>>>>>> imprisonment is.
>>>>
>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>
>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into the common
>>>>> law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>
>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>
>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of
>>>>> incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>
>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that leads to the
>>> detention.
>>
>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>
>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly clear
>>>>> that the specific intent was to detain someone,
>>
>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>>
>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>
>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>
>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with the
>>>>> detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't been a live
>>>>> one.
>>
>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is lacking.
>>
>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>
>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>
>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but been
>>>>> unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>
>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>
>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent to that.
>>
>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>
>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>
>>>> Your problem.

> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby keep them
> trapped, surely I am guilty of something.

Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false imprisonment
because there was no intent to imprison anyone.

And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.

Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.

Re: Fire stair doors

<snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4593&group=aus.legal#4593

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 18:07:07 +1100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="48590"; posting-host="JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.2
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:07 UTC

On 24/11/2021 4:24 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>
>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>
>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright unlawful.
>>>>>>>> Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>
>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it
>>>>>>> turns out is accessible on
>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a bunch
>>>>>>> of zeros.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks the
>>>>>>> door upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other than a
>>>>>>> FPAA101D system) complying with Specification E1.5 or smoke, or
>>>>>>> any other detector system deemed suitable in accordance with AS
>>>>>>> 1670.1 installed throughout the building, and is readily openable
>>>>>>> when unlocked; "
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this
>>>>>>> option to be used, because it limits the availability of the
>>>>>>> exits to those specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such
>>>>>>> requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a criminal
>>>>>>> offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how short the period
>>>>>>> of imprisonment is.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into the
>>>>>> common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of
>>>>>> incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>
>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that leads to
>>>> the detention.
>>>
>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>
>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly
>>>>>> clear that the specific intent was to detain someone,
>>>
>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>>>
>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>
>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>
>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with the
>>>>>> detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't been a live
>>>>>> one.
>>>
>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is lacking.
>>>
>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>
>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>
>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but been
>>>>>> unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>
>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>
>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent to
>>>>>> that.
>>>
>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>
>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>
>>>>> Your problem.
>
>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby keep
>> them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>
> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false imprisonment
> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>
> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>
> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.

Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week due to my
fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that I am guilty of no crime?

Re: Fire stair doors

<j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4597&group=aus.legal#4597

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 19:24:34 +1100
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net> <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net> <j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net cZzNZesqALdu3vx7C5CwrQJ/qzelhAIvX9IuqOX1lklqenXZU=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rsXNkyBrRw3YUQomINMYhz70MD0=
In-Reply-To: <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:24 UTC

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright unlawful.
>>>>>>>>> Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it turns
>>>>>>>> out is accessible on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a bunch
>>>>>>>> of zeros.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks the
>>>>>>>> door upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other than a
>>>>>>>> FPAA101D system) complying with Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any
>>>>>>>> other detector system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1
>>>>>>>> installed throughout the building, and is readily openable when
>>>>>>>> unlocked; "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this
>>>>>>>> option to be used, because it limits the availability of the exits
>>>>>>>> to those specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such
>>>>>>>> requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a criminal
>>>>>>>> offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how short the period
>>>>>>>> of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into the
>>>>>>> common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of
>>>>>>> incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>
>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that leads to the
>>>>> detention.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>
>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly clear
>>>>>>> that the specific intent was to detain someone,
>>>>
>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>>>>
>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>
>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>
>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with the
>>>>>>> detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't been a live
>>>>>>> one.
>>>>
>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is lacking.
>>>>
>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>
>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but been
>>>>>>> unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>
>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent to
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>
>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>
>>>>>> Your problem.
>>
>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby keep them
>>> trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>
>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false imprisonment
>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>
>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>
>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.

> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week due to my
> fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that I am guilty of no
> crime?

Nope.

I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.

Re: Fire stair doors

<j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4598&group=aus.legal#4598

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 20:07:37 +1100
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 4mBY3jY8P+RZO5Y9AY30Xg5Gkzq1VNkdsP1e+18ieVIEeitpIK
Cancel-Lock: sha1:htpula7fxCBfTTZPIi+PMyxXjok=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.0
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net>
 by: Sylvia Else - Wed, 24 Nov 2021 09:07 UTC

On 24-Nov-21 7:24 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it
>>>>>>>>> turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a
>>>>>>>>> bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks
>>>>>>>>> the door upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other
>>>>>>>>> than a FPAA101D system) complying with Specification E1.5 or
>>>>>>>>> smoke, or any other detector system deemed suitable in
>>>>>>>>> accordance with AS 1670.1 installed throughout the building,
>>>>>>>>> and is readily openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this
>>>>>>>>> option to be used, because it limits the availability of the
>>>>>>>>> exits to those specific kinds of emergency, but there is no
>>>>>>>>> such requirement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how short
>>>>>>>>> the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into the
>>>>>>>> common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of
>>>>>>>> incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>
>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that leads to
>>>>>> the detention.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly
>>>>>>>> clear that the specific intent was to detain someone,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>
>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with the
>>>>>>>> detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't been a
>>>>>>>> live one.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is lacking.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>
>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but
>>>>>>>> been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent to
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>
>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby keep
>>>> them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>
>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false imprisonment
>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>
>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>
>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>
>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week due to my
>> fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that I am guilty of no
>> crime?
>
> Nope.
>
> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.

Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the door
to prevent other people from stealing the food?

Sylvia.

Re: Fire stair doors

<j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4599&group=aus.legal#4599

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 03:27:34 +1100
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net> <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net> <j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net> <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net E/UU9cVlSiI7w6E3MQhdywSUxmKsBFwRTBDGvvivypsvvL0dk=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ijhUukkz7qDFvJDvKpxaSFJbcUc=
In-Reply-To: <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Wed, 24 Nov 2021 16:27 UTC

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright unlawful.
>>>>>>>>>>> Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it
>>>>>>>>>> turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a bunch
>>>>>>>>>> of zeros.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks the
>>>>>>>>>> door upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other than a
>>>>>>>>>> FPAA101D system) complying with Specification E1.5 or smoke, or
>>>>>>>>>> any other detector system deemed suitable in accordance with AS
>>>>>>>>>> 1670.1 installed throughout the building, and is readily openable
>>>>>>>>>> when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this
>>>>>>>>>> option to be used, because it limits the availability of the
>>>>>>>>>> exits to those specific kinds of emergency, but there is no such
>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a criminal
>>>>>>>>>> offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how short the period
>>>>>>>>>> of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into the
>>>>>>>>> common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of
>>>>>>>>> incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that leads to
>>>>>>> the detention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly
>>>>>>>>> clear that the specific intent was to detain someone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with the
>>>>>>>>> detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't been a live
>>>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is
>>>>>>>> lacking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but been
>>>>>>>>> unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent to
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>
>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby keep
>>>>> them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false imprisonment
>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>
>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>
>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week due to my
>>> fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that I am guilty of no
>>> crime?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.

> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the door to
> prevent other people from stealing the food?

Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.

Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.

Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
work out how to open it while inside.

Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
how to get the door to open once inside.

Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
but cant work out how to get out again.

Re: Fire stair doors

<j07tauFa4dkU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4601&group=aus.legal#4601

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 09:40:30 +1100
Lines: 147
Message-ID: <j07tauFa4dkU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net> <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net>
<j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 5Uc75pFOz8brs41CIP4oXwpv7EwtUGXowenD3MaRZjocT0gaoY
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T5clF2TXwyKZbE/XIa84FNyTmYU=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.0
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net>
 by: Sylvia Else - Wed, 24 Nov 2021 22:40 UTC

On 25-Nov-21 3:27 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it
>>>>>>>>>>> turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a
>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks
>>>>>>>>>>> the door upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other
>>>>>>>>>>> than a FPAA101D system) complying with Specification E1.5 or
>>>>>>>>>>> smoke, or any other detector system deemed suitable in
>>>>>>>>>>> accordance with AS 1670.1 installed throughout the building,
>>>>>>>>>>> and is readily openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this
>>>>>>>>>>> option to be used, because it limits the availability of the
>>>>>>>>>>> exits to those specific kinds of emergency, but there is no
>>>>>>>>>>> such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how
>>>>>>>>>>> short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into
>>>>>>>>>> the common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of
>>>>>>>>>> incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that leads
>>>>>>>> to the detention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly
>>>>>>>>>> clear that the specific intent was to detain someone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with
>>>>>>>>>> the detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't
>>>>>>>>>> been a live one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is
>>>>>>>>> lacking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but
>>>>>>>>>> been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent
>>>>>>>>>> to that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby
>>>>>> keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>
>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week due to
>>>> my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that I am guilty
>>>> of no crime?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>
>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the door
>> to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>
> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>
> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>
> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
> work out how to open it while inside.
>
> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
> how to get the door to open once inside.
>
> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
> but cant work out how to get out again.

You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that involve
locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in. None of your
examples address that.

Sylvia

Re: Fire stair doors

<j0838iFb728U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4602&group=aus.legal#4602

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 11:21:34 +1100
Lines: 156
Message-ID: <j0838iFb728U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net> <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net> <j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net> <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net> <j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net> <j07tauFa4dkU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 6INBFPTTh2B5qTg9Fw91Hw9pt5PHjNxF+SUR4uhd3V5pOT9XU=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8BWbSJxATr+IE+m+IquIKFfemP8=
In-Reply-To: <j07tauFa4dkU1@mid.individual.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Thu, 25 Nov 2021 00:21 UTC

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it
>>>>>>>>>>>> turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks
>>>>>>>>>>>> the door upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other
>>>>>>>>>>>> than a FPAA101D system) complying with Specification E1.5 or
>>>>>>>>>>>> smoke, or any other detector system deemed suitable in
>>>>>>>>>>>> accordance with AS 1670.1 installed throughout the building,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and is readily openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this
>>>>>>>>>>>> option to be used, because it limits the availability of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> exits to those specific kinds of emergency, but there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>> such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how short
>>>>>>>>>>>> the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into the
>>>>>>>>>>> common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of
>>>>>>>>>>> incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that leads to
>>>>>>>>> the detention.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly
>>>>>>>>>>> clear that the specific intent was to detain someone,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with the
>>>>>>>>>>> detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't been a
>>>>>>>>>>> live one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is
>>>>>>>>>> lacking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but
>>>>>>>>>>> been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent to
>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby keep
>>>>>>> them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week due to my
>>>>> fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that I am guilty of no
>>>>> crime?
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>
>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the door
>>> to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>
>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>
>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>
>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>
>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>
>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>> but cant work out how to get out again.

> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that involve
> locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Fire stair doors

<j084ecFbd5bU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4603&group=aus.legal#4603

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 11:41:47 +1100
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <j084ecFbd5bU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net> <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net>
<j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net> <j07tauFa4dkU1@mid.individual.net>
<j0838iFb728U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net SyEEUbBRj+r4OfYU7eanqw2pL+2cD7JUjCWE91KEfW+i8glP2r
Cancel-Lock: sha1:z1DnTN/MIuMBIniVq0zIgVaqU5A=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.0
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <j0838iFb728U1@mid.individual.net>
 by: Sylvia Else - Thu, 25 Nov 2021 00:41 UTC

On 25-Nov-21 11:21 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocks the door upon the activation of any sprinkler
>>>>>>>>>>>>> system (other than a FPAA101D system) complying with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other detector system
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1 installed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the building, and is readily openable when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this option to be used, because it limits the availability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the exits to those specific kinds of emergency, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into
>>>>>>>>>>>> the common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind
>>>>>>>>>>>> of incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that
>>>>>>>>>> leads to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>> abundantly clear that the specific intent was to detain
>>>>>>>>>>>> someone,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is
>>>>>>>>>>> lacking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but
>>>>>>>>>>>> been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied
>>>>>>>>>>>> consent to that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby
>>>>>>>> keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week due to
>>>>>> my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that I am guilty
>>>>>> of no crime?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>
>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the
>>>> door to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>>
>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>
>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>
>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>
>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>
>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>
>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that involve
>> locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in.
>
> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>
> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty of
> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing that there
> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false imprisonment.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Fire stair doors

<j086vgFbrjgU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4604&group=aus.legal#4604

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.neodome.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:25:00 +1100
Lines: 183
Message-ID: <j086vgFbrjgU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net> <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net> <j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net> <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net> <j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net> <j07tauFa4dkU1@mid.individual.net> <j0838iFb728U1@mid.individual.net> <j084ecFbd5bU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net XZIAfBO4MIiMM16cP7AZ3AmAtAvCyCxZXzAhuWM1vd69U+j5w=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7x457coL/itaMNku801jxgbjoKU=
In-Reply-To: <j084ecFbd5bU1@mid.individual.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Thu, 25 Nov 2021 01:25 UTC

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically unlocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the door upon the activation of any sprinkler system (other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than a FPAA101D system) complying with Specification E1.5 or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smoke, or any other detector system deemed suitable in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accordance with AS 1670.1 installed throughout the building,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and is readily openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option to be used, because it limits the availability of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exits to those specific kinds of emergency, but there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that leads
>>>>>>>>>>> to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been abundantly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear that the specific intent was to detain someone,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied consent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby
>>>>>>>>> keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week due to
>>>>>>> my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that I am guilty
>>>>>>> of no crime?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>>
>>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the door
>>>>> to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>>>
>>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>>
>>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>>
>>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>>
>>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>>
>>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>>
>>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that involve
>>> locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in.
>>
>> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>>
>> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty of
>> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing that there
>> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false imprisonment.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Fire stair doors

<snn8j8$7qv$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4605&group=aus.legal#4605

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 16:56:55 +1100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <snn8j8$7qv$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net> <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net>
<j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net> <j07tauFa4dkU1@mid.individual.net>
<j0838iFb728U1@mid.individual.net> <j084ecFbd5bU1@mid.individual.net>
<j086vgFbrjgU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="8031"; posting-host="JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.2
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Thu, 25 Nov 2021 05:56 UTC

On 25/11/2021 12:25 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocks the door upon the activation of any sprinkler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system (other than a FPAA101D system) complying with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other detector system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1 installed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the building, and is readily openable when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this option to be used, because it limits the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availability of the exits to those specific kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that
>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundantly clear that the specific intent was to detain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hasn't been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent to that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby
>>>>>>>>>> keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week due
>>>>>>>> to my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that I am
>>>>>>>> guilty of no crime?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the
>>>>>> door to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>>>>
>>>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>>>
>>>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that
>>>> involve locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in.
>>>
>>> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>>>
>>> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty of
>>> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing that there
>>> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>
>> For transportation, there is implied consent.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> For international arrivals at airports, there is a statutory power to
>> detain for a period.
>
> Wrong, as always. There is no period defined in the statute.
>
>> For your other examples, locking a door doesn't necessarily confine a
>> person.
>
> Corse it does when you don’t have the key.
>
>> You seem to be deliberately avoiding the specific scenario where a
>> person is confined without their consent (implied or otherwise)
>
> Wrong, as always. I keep rubbing your nose in the
> fact that no individual has any intent to imprison you.
>
>> and without any legal basis for doing so.
>
> Wrong, as always. There is an obvious legal
> basis for doing what is safer with the lift.
>
> You are desperately attempting to stop them doing
> what is perfectly legal for them to do. Just like with
> all the other example I rubbed you nose in.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Fire stair doors

<j091a4FgfobU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4607&group=aus.legal#4607

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 19:54:23 +1100
Lines: 199
Message-ID: <j091a4FgfobU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net> <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net> <j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net> <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net> <j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net> <j07tauFa4dkU1@mid.individual.net> <j0838iFb728U1@mid.individual.net> <j084ecFbd5bU1@mid.individual.net> <j086vgFbrjgU1@mid.individual.net> <snn8j8$7qv$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net UszWV8EW1XvVOWMEdsaQ8gtmI0XI7Bgyr1+AxDw1WefUEaKnU=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NK2xWfzbjV9kI+Gitnz3U24VINQ=
In-Reply-To: <snn8j8$7qv$1@gioia.aioe.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:54 UTC

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocks the door upon the activation of any sprinkler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system (other than a FPAA101D system) complying with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other detector system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1 installed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the building, and is readily openable when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this option to be used, because it limits the availability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the exits to those specific kinds of emergency, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a kind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundantly clear that the specific intent was to detain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent to that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby
>>>>>>>>>>> keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week due to
>>>>>>>>> my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that I am guilty
>>>>>>>>> of no crime?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the
>>>>>>> door to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>>>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>>>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>>>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>>>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>>>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>>>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>>>>
>>>>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that involve
>>>>> locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in.
>>>>
>>>> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>>>>
>>>> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty
>>>> of
>>>> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing that
>>>> there
>>>> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>>
>>> For transportation, there is implied consent.
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> For international arrivals at airports, there is a statutory power to
>>> detain for a period.
>>
>> Wrong, as always. There is no period defined in the statute.
>>
>>> For your other examples, locking a door doesn't necessarily confine a
>>> person.
>>
>> Corse it does when you don’t have the key.
>>
>>> You seem to be deliberately avoiding the specific scenario where a
>>> person is confined without their consent (implied or otherwise)
>>
>> Wrong, as always. I keep rubbing your nose in the
>> fact that no individual has any intent to imprison you.
>>
>>> and without any legal basis for doing so.
>>
>> Wrong, as always. There is an obvious legal
>> basis for doing what is safer with the lift.
>>
>> You are desperately attempting to stop them doing
>> what is perfectly legal for them to do. Just like with
>> all the other example I rubbed you nose in.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Fire stair doors

<snnjib$8bj$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4608&group=aus.legal#4608

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: max...@val.morgan (Max)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 20:04:09 +1100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <snnjib$8bj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net> <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net>
<j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net> <j07tauFa4dkU1@mid.individual.net>
<j0838iFb728U1@mid.individual.net> <j084ecFbd5bU1@mid.individual.net>
<j086vgFbrjgU1@mid.individual.net> <snn8j8$7qv$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j091a4FgfobU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="8563"; posting-host="JlFCL6lVhZ5rf6QIXhIVHQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.2
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Max - Thu, 25 Nov 2021 09:04 UTC

On 25/11/2021 7:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted a bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocks the door upon the activation of any sprinkler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system (other than a FPAA101D system) complying with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other detector
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed throughout the building, and is readily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this option to be used, because it limits the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availability of the exits to those specific kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundantly clear that the specific intent was to detain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hasn't been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is lacking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent to that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and
>>>>>>>>>>>> thereby keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week
>>>>>>>>>> due to my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that
>>>>>>>>>> I am guilty of no crime?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked
>>>>>>>> the door to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>>>>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>>>>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>>>>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>>>>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>>>>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>>>>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that
>>>>>> involve locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in.
>>>>>
>>>>> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>>>>>
>>>>> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms,
>>>>> plenty of
>>>>> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing that
>>>>> there
>>>>> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>>>
>>>> For transportation, there is implied consent.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>>> For international arrivals at airports, there is a statutory power
>>>> to detain for a period.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always. There is no period defined in the statute.
>>>
>>>> For your other examples, locking a door doesn't necessarily confine
>>>> a person.
>>>
>>> Corse it does when you don’t have the key.
>>>
>>>> You seem to be deliberately avoiding the specific scenario where a
>>>> person is confined without their consent (implied or otherwise)
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always. I keep rubbing your nose in the
>>> fact that no individual has any intent to imprison you.
>>>
>>>> and without any legal basis for doing so.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always. There is an obvious legal
>>> basis for doing what is safer with the lift.
>>>
>>> You are desperately attempting to stop them doing
>>> what is perfectly legal for them to do. Just like with
>>> all the other example I rubbed you nose in.
>
>> If there is an intent to do an action that would imprison then that is
>> enough.
>
> Wrong, as always. Most obviously with aircraft, trains,
> cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty of buildings
> and houses, prison visitors, an individual who did lock
> the door knowing that there was someone inside and
> none of that is criminal false imprisonment.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Fire stair doors

<j09vqoFmabpU1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4614&group=aus.legal#4614

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.neodome.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 04:35:18 +1100
Lines: 206
Message-ID: <j09vqoFmabpU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net> <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net> <j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net> <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net> <j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net> <j07tauFa4dkU1@mid.individual.net> <j0838iFb728U1@mid.individual.net> <j084ecFbd5bU1@mid.individual.net> <j086vgFbrjgU1@mid.individual.net> <snn8j8$7qv$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j091a4FgfobU1@mid.individual.net> <snnjib$8bj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 7OtnSaeW792tAMdFk3NMKAzv021l35RbZsw3npKG2GdobZ78s=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hlt4pioYcDRetqG5JQ1Muruml84=
In-Reply-To: <snnjib$8bj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Thu, 25 Nov 2021 17:35 UTC

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it accepted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocks the door upon the activation of any sprinkler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system (other than a FPAA101D system) complying with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other detector system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1 installed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout the building, and is readily openable when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this option to be used, because it limits the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availability of the exits to those specific kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundantly clear that the specific intent was to detain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hasn't been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lacking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent to that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and thereby
>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week due
>>>>>>>>>>> to my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that I am
>>>>>>>>>>> guilty of no crime?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the
>>>>>>>>> door to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>>>>>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>>>>>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>>>>>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>>>>>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>>>>>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>>>>>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that
>>>>>>> involve locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing that
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>>> For transportation, there is implied consent.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> For international arrivals at airports, there is a statutory power to
>>>>> detain for a period.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always. There is no period defined in the statute.
>>>>
>>>>> For your other examples, locking a door doesn't necessarily confine a
>>>>> person.
>>>>
>>>> Corse it does when you don’t have the key.
>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be deliberately avoiding the specific scenario where a
>>>>> person is confined without their consent (implied or otherwise)
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always. I keep rubbing your nose in the
>>>> fact that no individual has any intent to imprison you.
>>>>
>>>>> and without any legal basis for doing so.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always. There is an obvious legal
>>>> basis for doing what is safer with the lift.
>>>>
>>>> You are desperately attempting to stop them doing
>>>> what is perfectly legal for them to do. Just like with
>>>> all the other example I rubbed you nose in.
>>
>>> If there is an intent to do an action that would imprison then that is
>>> enough.
>>
>> Wrong, as always. Most obviously with aircraft, trains,
>> cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty of buildings
>> and houses, prison visitors, an individual who did lock
>> the door knowing that there was someone inside and
>> none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>
> All of those situations involve the implied consent of the person being
> trapped.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Fire stair doors

<j0aj6pFpqnsU2@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4621&group=aus.legal#4621

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: syl...@email.invalid (Sylvia Else)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 10:06:01 +1100
Lines: 213
Message-ID: <j0aj6pFpqnsU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net>
<ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net>
<j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net> <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net>
<j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net> <j07tauFa4dkU1@mid.individual.net>
<j0838iFb728U1@mid.individual.net> <j084ecFbd5bU1@mid.individual.net>
<j086vgFbrjgU1@mid.individual.net> <snn8j8$7qv$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<j091a4FgfobU1@mid.individual.net> <snnjib$8bj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net pVe/7WacA2QffnOyhCimjQ32o9s7rcvv46w5xmLXMkzLB9HgFv
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eNziwuWlOQUVOlfQnh890jXM0H0=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.0
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <snnjib$8bj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 by: Sylvia Else - Thu, 25 Nov 2021 23:06 UTC

On 25-Nov-21 8:04 pm, Max wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 7:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted a bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocks the door upon the activation of any sprinkler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system (other than a FPAA101D system) complying with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other detector
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed throughout the building, and is readily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this option to be used, because it limits the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availability of the exits to those specific kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter how short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundantly clear that the specific intent was to detain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the detention being merely a foreseen outcome,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just hasn't been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is lacking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building but been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent to that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thereby keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week
>>>>>>>>>>> due to my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that
>>>>>>>>>>> I am guilty of no crime?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked
>>>>>>>>> the door to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>>>>>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>>>>>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>>>>>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>>>>>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>>>>>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>>>>>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that
>>>>>>> involve locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms,
>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing that
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>>> For transportation, there is implied consent.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> For international arrivals at airports, there is a statutory power
>>>>> to detain for a period.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always. There is no period defined in the statute.
>>>>
>>>>> For your other examples, locking a door doesn't necessarily confine
>>>>> a person.
>>>>
>>>> Corse it does when you don’t have the key.
>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be deliberately avoiding the specific scenario where a
>>>>> person is confined without their consent (implied or otherwise)
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always. I keep rubbing your nose in the
>>>> fact that no individual has any intent to imprison you.
>>>>
>>>>> and without any legal basis for doing so.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always. There is an obvious legal
>>>> basis for doing what is safer with the lift.
>>>>
>>>> You are desperately attempting to stop them doing
>>>> what is perfectly legal for them to do. Just like with
>>>> all the other example I rubbed you nose in.
>>
>>> If there is an intent to do an action that would imprison then that
>>> is enough.
>>
>> Wrong, as always. Most obviously with aircraft, trains,
>> cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty of buildings
>> and houses, prison visitors, an individual who did lock
>> the door knowing that there was someone inside and
>> none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>
> All of those situations involve the implied consent of the person being
> trapped.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Fire stair doors

<j0asnbFrj83U1@mid.individual.net>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=4626&group=aus.legal#4626

 copy link   Newsgroups: aus.legal
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rod.spee...@gmail.com (Rod Speed)
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Fire stair doors
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:48:23 +1100
Lines: 220
Message-ID: <j0asnbFrj83U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ivguliFs0v2U1@mid.individual.net> <ivtj3gFamghU1@mid.individual.net> <j03e2dFe3klU1@mid.individual.net> <j03el0Fe6liU1@mid.individual.net> <j03kkaFf8fqU1@mid.individual.net> <j03n72Ffof9U1@mid.individual.net> <snii01$4oi$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j04me7Flle5U1@mid.individual.net> <snkoar$1fee$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j06b67FjucU1@mid.individual.net> <j06dmrF129dU1@mid.individual.net> <j077foF60o7U1@mid.individual.net> <j07tauFa4dkU1@mid.individual.net> <j0838iFb728U1@mid.individual.net> <j084ecFbd5bU1@mid.individual.net> <j086vgFbrjgU1@mid.individual.net> <snn8j8$7qv$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j091a4FgfobU1@mid.individual.net> <snnjib$8bj$1@gioia.aioe.org> <j0aj6pFpqnsU2@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net Ao4kbvFkNyh7MSEyuhznTgk9H4ish98mDzwsLcrsHtt3VgVks=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jUUwXBfsUePRE4ta5J6+g5ITl2M=
In-Reply-To: <j0aj6pFpqnsU2@mid.individual.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
 by: Rod Speed - Fri, 26 Nov 2021 01:48 UTC

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Max wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted a bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocks the door upon the activation of any sprinkler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system (other than a FPAA101D system) complying with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other detector
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed throughout the building, and is readily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this option to be used, because it limits the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availability of the exits to those specific kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundantly clear that the specific intent was to detain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the detention being merely a foreseen outcome, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hasn't been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is lacking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a building
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent to that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thereby keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week due
>>>>>>>>>>>> to my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> guilty of no crime?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the
>>>>>>>>>> door to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>>>>>>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>>>>>>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>>>>>>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>>>>>>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>>>>>>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>>>>>>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that
>>>>>>>> involve locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms,
>>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>>> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing that
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For transportation, there is implied consent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For international arrivals at airports, there is a statutory power to
>>>>>> detain for a period.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is no period defined in the statute.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For your other examples, locking a door doesn't necessarily confine a
>>>>>> person.
>>>>>
>>>>> Corse it does when you don’t have the key.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to be deliberately avoiding the specific scenario where a
>>>>>> person is confined without their consent (implied or otherwise)
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always. I keep rubbing your nose in the
>>>>> fact that no individual has any intent to imprison you.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and without any legal basis for doing so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is an obvious legal
>>>>> basis for doing what is safer with the lift.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are desperately attempting to stop them doing
>>>>> what is perfectly legal for them to do. Just like with
>>>>> all the other example I rubbed you nose in.
>>>
>>>> If there is an intent to do an action that would imprison then that is
>>>> enough.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always. Most obviously with aircraft, trains,
>>> cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty of buildings
>>> and houses, prison visitors, an individual who did lock
>>> the door knowing that there was someone inside and
>>> none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>>
>> All of those situations involve the implied consent of the person being
>> trapped.
>
> Now you've made a fatal mistake. Rod Bot will focus on the fact that there
> are situations where that's not the case, and continue to ignore the
> specific scenario of interest.


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor