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.

Wrong, as always/