On 26-Nov-21 12:48 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> 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.
>
> I have never ignored your original scenario, I have in fact kept
> rubbing your nose in the fact that there was never any INTENT
> to imprison anyone. At most a poorly designed system.
>
>> Not that avoiding fatal mistakes will get you much further. The bot
>> will just go round in circles, desperate to avoid the conclusion that
>> it was wrong in the first place.
>
> You are the one who keeps doing that.

You have carefully ignored:

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

Sylvia.