Olotu v Home Office [1996] EWCA Civ 1070

The plaintiff was held in prison 81 days beyond the custody time limit prescribed by regulations. She sued the Home Office for false imprisonment and the Crown Prosecution Service for breach of statutory duty. The Court of Appeal struck out both claims, holding the prison governor was bound by the warrant and the CPS owed no private law duty.

Facts

The plaintiff, Jeanette Ann Olotu, was arrested on 6 February 1994, charged with criminal offences the following day, and committed in custody for trial at Bristol Crown Court on 25 April 1994. She was held at HM Prison Pucklechurch from committal until her release on 3 November 1994, a period of 193 days. Under Regulation 5(3)(a) of the Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987, the maximum custody period between committal and arraignment was 112 days. The plaintiff contended that the last 81 days of her detention were unlawful as they exceeded this limit. The Crown Prosecution Service failed to comply with its duty under Regulation 6(1) to bring her before the court so she might be admitted to bail.

Issues

Claim against the Home Office

Whether the prison governor was liable for false imprisonment for detaining the plaintiff beyond the custody time limit when no court order for release had been made.

Claim against the Crown Prosecution Service

Whether the statutory duty imposed on the CPS by Regulation 6 of the 1987 Regulations gave rise to a private law right of action for damages for breach of statutory duty.

Judgment

The Home Office

The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the striking out of her claim against the Home Office. Lord Bingham CJ held that the plaintiff was in the custody of the Crown Court following committal, and only by order of the court could that custody be ended. The prison governor was bound by the warrant of commitment to keep the plaintiff until delivered to the Crown Court in due course of law. Although the plaintiff was unlawfully detained after the custody time limit expired, the governor was neither entitled nor bound to release her without a court order. The valid warrant provided a conclusive defence to false imprisonment.

Mummery LJ stated:

The valid Warrant of Commitment provides a conclusive answer to the Plaintiff’s claim of false imprisonment against the Home Office.

The Crown Prosecution Service

The Court of Appeal allowed the CPS’s appeal and struck out the claim against it. The court applied established principles from R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison Ex parte Hague and X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council to determine whether Parliament intended the statutory duty to confer a private law right of action. Lord Bingham CJ concluded that neither Parliament nor the Secretary of State intended to create such a private law right. The object of the provisions was to achieve expedition in prosecutions and ensure defendants did not remain excessively in custody, but the available remedies were through bail applications or judicial review, not private law damages claims.

The court relied on Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, which held that the CPS owes no general duty of care to defendants in criminal proceedings.

Implications

This case establishes that a prison governor who holds a prisoner pursuant to a valid warrant of commitment is not liable for false imprisonment even if custody time limits expire, provided no court has ordered release. The governor’s duty is to obey the court’s direction in the warrant. The case also confirms that breach of the CPS’s statutory duties under custody time limit regulations does not give rise to a private law action for damages. Remedies for persons detained beyond custody time limits lie in applications for bail to the Crown Court or judicial review proceedings, not in civil claims for damages. The Lord Chief Justice expressed concern that if the plaintiff had through no fault of her own spent excessive time in custody with no right to compensation, this would be highly unjust.

Verdict: The plaintiff's appeal against the striking out of her claim against the Home Office was dismissed. The Crown Prosecution Service's appeal was allowed and the plaintiff's claim against it was struck out. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs.

Source: Olotu v Home Office [1996] EWCA Civ 1070