Rob Junior was falsely imprisoned in the confinement by Divine Church. The aspect/view presented that Jnr. was in the church compound gives light to his false imprisonment that is - Kidnapping. Plaintiff has been brought into the church’s confinement and apparently cannot and has no rights to move in or out of the church as much as he would willingly do. He thus cannot go to see his fiends or family. The Church (Tort feaser) or defendant has managed to confine the boy (plaintiff) in its premises. For one to strongly accuse the other of false imprisonment the very element that connects in this case is “the mind”, in this regard ones mind has to be strongly convinced of the tort taking place. It thus can be in an open or closed space (e.g. room, house, bus-park or open road), as long as the mind sets ITSELF “NO FREE MOVEMENT” that in law is false imprisonment. Psychological confinement is sufficient if D makes P reasonably believe P is not free to move (Chaytor).
P need not be aware of the false imprisonment if D lets the incident be known to the detriment of P's reputation (Meering v. Grahame White Aviation).In the case of Rob Jnr. v the Church, the defendant practiced this towards the plaintiff by the act of convincing the minor to go to their church and be one of its members. This could have been done through cohesion, offer of gifts or simply brain washing. It could also be through hypnotize, but the end results being unlawful confinement, which to a layman translates to kidnapping. The parents – legal to the minor had no consent to such acts of the defendants.
As a course of action, the tort of false imprisonment should be legally convincing to the courts nd jury as it strongly implicates the allegiance of the law suits by the parents of the minor – Rob Jnr. against the tort feasers – Divine Light Church.
The case of Rob Jnr. V. Divine Light Church has high success rate based on the cause of action – false imprisonment/kidnapping. Upon the facts of the case, Rob Jnr. was brain-washed and convinced to join a “cult church” by the church representative. An act which if he – Jnr. was in a sound mind would decline to just as his parent did. And due to this act, a civil suit has been filed in the courts against the defendants – the church.
There is the aspect of the plaintiff being a minor. In law, a minor is believed and depicted as one who has not reached the adult age, that is not attained ‘majority age’. The plaintiff is not in a legal position to make”majority decision” without the knowledge/consent of the parents until he attains majority age.
The plaintiff is also of unsound mind – was brain washed by the church representative into believing something he might not believe in normally. Rob Jnrs’ mind was not in its pure state to differentiate wrong, right, moral or immoral, and so regarded either one as the same. In this view, there is a strong point to convince the court/jury of the plaintiff’s impaired judgment, or duress as may have been under medication or intoxication. In law, a false-imprisonment applies, even if consent to imprisonment is given under duress. Imprisonment therefore doesn’t have to be physical restrains, but —can be assertion of legal authority (Campbell v. SS Krresge).
There was utterly no consent of the parents to have their son – Jnr. join the church or cultish practices. The parents thus sue the church in protest to the emotional and physical abuse acts of the church on a minor incapable of making independent decision. This proves the facts the parents are suing the church for, as the burden of proof depends on them. The law stipulates that “he who alleges proves” and the proof has no be on a balance of probability.
The other fact against the Divine Light Church is that it is a cult, and tends to believe Michael Exerter its current leader has come to salvage the world. Much as cults tend to portray a religious face of positivity, the amount of negativity cannot go scorch free. Immoral activities are also claimed by former members of the sect, implying acts of sex with minors and other church members as a belief of purity prior to having sex with the rest of the world. Instead of the church instilling a religious culture pure to the heart, it involves its members into immorality, impure to the society.
A tort in general falls under the juris of civil actions as in the past writs were given for different torts e.g. assault, battery, conversion or defamations. This is reflected in the case of Rob Jnr. v Divine Light Church as the case falls under false imprisonment which is also a tort in the legal concept. It is thus a civil suit in that it is an (individual v individual), that is a tort feaser and an individual, but would be a different scenario if it were a criminal suit which tends to be individuals v the State e.g. (R V. Divine Light Church).