Prison Officers Association v Iqbal (Rev 1) [2009] EWCA Civ 1312

A prisoner was confined to his cell during an unlawful strike by prison officers and sued their union for false imprisonment. The Court of Appeal held that an omission (the officers' failure to work) does not constitute false imprisonment, which requires a positive act of detention.

Facts

The claimant, Mr Iqbal, was a prisoner at HMP Wealstun. On 29 August 2007, the Prison Officers Association (POA), the defendant union, called its members out on an unlawful national strike in protest against the government’s decision to stage the prison service pay award. As a result of the prison officers’ absence, the governor of HMP Wealstun ordered that all prisoners be kept in their cells throughout the day for safety and security. Consequently, the claimant was confined to his cell for the entire day, unable to access the usual six hours of ‘time on association’ for work and recreation. The claimant was already lawfully detained in the prison, but he argued that this additional confinement within his cell amounted to the tort of false imprisonment. He brought a claim against the POA, arguing it was vicariously liable for the actions of the striking prison officers.

Issues

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the tort of false imprisonment could be committed by an omission. Specifically, did the failure of the prison officers to attend work and release the claimant from his cell for his period of association constitute false imprisonment? A secondary issue was whether the POA could be held liable for the conduct of its members during the industrial action.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court’s decision and finding that the prison officers’ conduct did not amount to false imprisonment. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Lord Justice Smith

Lord Justice Smith, giving the leading judgment, drew a clear distinction between a positive act causing imprisonment and a mere omission to release someone. She held that the tort of false imprisonment requires a positive, intentional act. The failure of the prison officers to report for duty was an omission. She reasoned that while the officers had a contractual duty to the governor to perform their tasks, they did not have a specific positive duty owed directly to the prisoner to release him from his cell. The decision to keep prisoners locked in was made by the governor as a consequence of the officers’ absence. She stated:

In my judgment, the authorities to which I have referred to above establish that the tort of false imprisonment is not committed by an omission to release a person from a confinement which is already in existence, unless the defendant is under a positive duty to release the claimant. The concept of a positive duty to act is, in this context, a narrow one. A duty to a third party (such as the Governor) will not suffice. Nor will a contractual duty. In my judgment, the prison officers did not owe a positive duty to the claimant to release him from his cell.

Since the officers’ actions were an omission and there was no positive duty to act owed to the claimant, there was no tort of false imprisonment for which the POA could be held vicariously liable.

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR

Lord Neuberger agreed, providing a detailed analysis of the components of false imprisonment. He emphasised that liability in tort generally arises from acts, not omissions, unless a special relationship or duty exists. The prison officers’ inaction was not a direct act of imprisonment. The immediate cause of the claimant’s continued confinement in his cell was the governor’s order, even though that order was a reaction to the strike. He concluded that the officers’ failure to work was a pure omission and did not meet the requirements for the tort:

…the failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison on 29 August 2007 was an omission, which did not constitute the tort of false imprisonment, and he therefore has no claim against them. For the same reason, the claimant has no claim against the POA. His claim in false imprisonment should therefore have been dismissed.

Implications

This decision reinforces the traditional boundary of the tort of false imprisonment, confirming that it is constituted by a positive act of detention rather than a passive failure to release. It clarifies that, absent a specific legal duty to act owed directly to the claimant, an omission will not found a claim in false imprisonment. The case is significant in the context of industrial action, as it limits the ability to sue striking workers or their unions in tort for the consequential effects of their withdrawal of labour. The court noted that while the claimant had no remedy in tort, other public law remedies might have been available against the governor or Home Secretary had their actions been unreasonable.

Verdict: The appeal was allowed. The High Court’s judgment in favour of the claimant was set aside and the claim for false imprisonment was dismissed.

Source: Prison Officers Association v Iqbal (Rev 1) [2009] EWCA Civ 1312