R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans [2000] UKHL 48

A prisoner was detained for 59 days beyond her lawful release date because the prison governor miscalculated her sentence based on a legal interpretation that was later overruled. The House of Lords held this was false imprisonment, a tort of strict liability.

Facts

The appellant, Michelle Evans, was serving consecutive prison sentences. The prison governor’s staff calculated her release date in accordance with the prevailing interpretation of the relevant sentencing provisions, as established in R v. Governor of Blundeston Prison, Ex parte Gaffney [1982] 1 W.L.R. 696. However, a subsequent High Court decision, R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Napper [1996] Q.B. 245, established a new method of calculation. Following this new interpretation, which was later upheld by the Court of Appeal, it became clear that Ms Evans had been detained for an additional 59 days beyond her lawful sentence. She brought an action for damages for false imprisonment against the prison governor.

Issues

The central legal issue before the House of Lords was whether a public official (the prison governor) commits the tort of false imprisonment when detaining a prisoner beyond their lawful sentence, even if the detention was based on a good faith calculation made in accordance with the law as it was understood at the time, before that legal interpretation was subsequently overruled by a higher court. In essence, is false imprisonment a tort of strict liability where the defendant’s state of mind (i.e., absence of negligence or bad faith) is irrelevant to liability?

Judgment

The House of Lords, by a majority of 4-1, allowed the appeal, holding the governor liable for false imprisonment. The majority reasoned that the tort of false imprisonment is one of strict liability, which protects an individual’s fundamental right to liberty. The key element is the fact of an unlawful detention, not the state of mind of the detainer.

Lord Slynn of Hadley

Lord Slynn established that the detention was, as a matter of law, unlawful once the correct release date had passed. He concluded that the governor’s lack of fault or honest belief in the legality of the detention was not a defence to the tort itself.

Lord Steyn

Lord Steyn emphasised the primacy of individual liberty and the nature of false imprisonment as a tort of strict liability. He rejected the argument that public officials should be immune from liability for honest mistakes of law, stating:

But the liberty of the subject is at stake. The House must decide what the cause of action for false imprisonment is. The issue is one of legal principle. The principle is that in an action for false imprisonment the defendant must show that he had lawful authority to detain the claimant. The governor of Brockhill Prison had no such authority after 17 November 1994. Public policy does not require that a claimant, who has been detained without lawful authority, should be deprived of a remedy.

Lord Hope of Craighead

Lord Hope provided a detailed analysis, distinguishing between the commission of the tort and available defences. He confirmed that the governor’s action constituted a trespass to the person, which does not require malice or negligence.

The act of continuing to detain the appellant after that date was an act of false imprisonment. It was a trespass to the person. This is a tort of strict liability. The essence of it is the mere imprisonment. A person who has been imprisoned without any authority whatever is entitled to damages for the loss of his liberty and for any inconvenience or damage which he has suffered which is a direct and natural consequence of the unlawful imprisonment. The fact that the person who has imprisoned him had reasonable and probable cause for taking this step is no defence.

Lord Hutton (Dissenting)

In his dissenting opinion, Lord Hutton argued for a public policy exception. He contended that a public official acting in good faith, in accordance with a judicial decision that was correct at the time, should not be held liable if that decision is later overruled.

In my opinion the question for the House in this case is whether there should be an exception to the general rule where a public official, such as a prison governor, acting in good faith, detains a prisoner in accordance with the law as correctly stated in a decision of the Divisional Court or the Court of Appeal and where that decision is subsequently overruled by a later decision of a higher court. In my respectful opinion there should be such an exception and I consider that a proper balancing of the interests of the individual and of the state requires such a modification of the general rule…

Implications

The decision firmly establishes that false imprisonment is a tort of strict liability in English law. It prioritises the citizen’s right to liberty over the protection of executive officers who make mistakes, even when those mistakes are non-negligent and based on the prevailing understanding of the law. The case clarifies that the unlawfulness of the detention is the key element, and the defendant’s good faith or lack of fault is irrelevant to the question of liability, although it may be relevant to the assessment of damages. This ruling reinforces the principle of the rule of law, holding the state and its agents accountable for any unlawful deprivation of liberty.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The governor was found liable for false imprisonment.

Source: R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans [2000] UKHL 48