Olutu v Home Office [1996] EWCA Civ 1070

A woman detained on remand remained in prison 81 days beyond the statutory custody time limit due to failures by the CPS. Her claims for false imprisonment against the Home Office and breach of statutory duty against the CPS were both struck out. The prison governor was bound by the court warrant and the regulations did not create private law rights.

Facts

The plaintiff, Jeanette Ann Olotu, was arrested on 6 February 1994, charged with criminal offences, and committed in custody for trial at the Crown Court on 25 April 1994. She was held at HM Prison Pucklechurch. 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, which expired on 15 August 1994. However, she was not released until 3 November 1994, remaining detained for an additional 81 days beyond the statutory limit. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) failed to comply with Regulation 6(1), which required them to bring her before the Crown Court before expiry of the time limit.

Issues

Claim against the Home Office

Whether the prison governor was liable for false imprisonment for detaining the plaintiff beyond the custody time limit without a court order for release.

Claim against the CPS

Whether the CPS’s breach of its statutory duty under Regulation 6 gave rise to a private law right of action for damages.

Judgment

Home Office Claim

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking out of the claim against the Home Office. Lord Bingham CJ held that the plaintiff was in the custody of the Crown Court, and only a court order could end that custody. The warrant of commitment directed the governor to keep the plaintiff until delivered to the Crown Court in due course of law. The governor was bound to comply with this direction unless a court ordered otherwise.

“Once the custody time limit had expired, the plaintiff was in my view unlawfully detained, and an order which would have led to her release could have been obtained either from the Crown Court or from the Divisional Court; but it does not follow that in the absence of any such order the Governor was guilty of falsely imprisoning the plaintiff and in my view he was neither entitled nor bound to release her.”

Mummery LJ concurred:

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

CPS Claim

The Court allowed the CPS’s appeal and struck out the claim against it. Applying principles from R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison Ex parte Hague and X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council, the court examined whether Parliament intended to create a private law right of action. Lord Bingham CJ concluded:

“It cannot in my opinion have been intended to confer a private law right of action for damages in such circumstances.”

Mummery LJ identified strong indicators against implying a statutory tort: the availability of other remedies (bail applications, habeas corpus, judicial review); absence of any indication in section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 that regulations could confer private rights of action; and policy considerations from Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police regarding CPS immunity.

Implications

This case confirms that prison governors acting under valid warrants of commitment are not liable for false imprisonment even where custody time limits have expired, absent a court order for release. It also establishes that breach of the CPS’s statutory duty under custody time limit regulations does not give rise to a private law claim for damages. The appropriate remedies remain in criminal proceedings (bail) and public law (judicial review). The court expressed concern about the apparent injustice if the plaintiff had no remedy, but noted the limitations of the statutory scheme.

Verdict: The plaintiff’s appeal against striking out her claim against the Home Office was dismissed. The CPS’s appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff’s claim against the CPS was struck out. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs.

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