False Imprisonment CASES
In English law, false imprisonment is the unlawful and complete restraint of a person’s freedom of movement without lawful justification. It protects the right to liberty. The restraint must be total (no reasonable means of escape); a mere obstruction or inconvenience is not enough. The tort is actionable per se—proof of damage is not required—and a claimant need not be aware of the restraint at the time, although awareness often affects the assessment of damages.
Definition and principles
False imprisonment consists of (i) an act that directly and completely restricts the claimant’s freedom to leave a defined area, and (ii) the absence of lawful authority or consent. Doors need not be locked: coercion, threats, or positioning can suffice if they effectively prevent departure. The restraint must be total; if a safe and reasonable route out exists and is known or obvious, the claim will fail. Consent can negate the tort, but it must be genuine and voluntary. Contractual or procedural settings (for example, airport security or event stewarding) do not give a licence to detain unless a legal power applies or informed consent is clear.
Common examples
- Police powers: detention without satisfying statutory conditions (for example, arrest without reasonable grounds or without necessity) may amount to false imprisonment; once lawfully arrested, continued detention must also comply with statutory review and time limits.
- Private security and retailers: holding a person in a back office “until police arrive” can be unlawful unless a statutory or common-law power applies and the detention is necessary and reasonable in scope and duration.
- Hospitals and care settings: restricting a competent adult’s movement without statutory authority or best-interests safeguards can constitute false imprisonment, even if done with good intentions.
- Workplaces and venues: locking exits or using staff or barriers to prevent someone leaving a room or site, absent lawful justification, may be actionable.
Defences and lawful authority
Key defences include valid statutory or common-law powers (for example, a lawful arrest), genuine consent, and situations where the restraint is justified to prevent immediate harm in narrowly defined circumstances. Citizen’s-arrest and similar powers are strictly limited and risky to use; necessity and reasonableness are central, and the scope and duration of any detention must be proportionate. A belief in authority that is both honest and reasonable may assist, but good faith alone is insufficient if the legal power is absent.
Legal implications
Damages vindicate the loss of liberty and are assessed by reference to the duration and circumstances of detention; aggravated damages may be awarded where the manner of detention is high-handed or humiliating, and exemplary damages may arise in exceptional cases (for example, oppressive misuse of power). Where detention would inevitably have been lawful in any event, only nominal damages may be available. Limitation is generally six years; where damages are sought for personal injury arising from the detention, a three-year period may apply. Relief by habeas corpus is available to challenge ongoing unlawful detention urgently, alongside claims for damages.
Practical importance
For claimants, focus on proving total restraint, timing, who exercised control, what exit options (if any) existed, and the absence of lawful power. Preserve CCTV, body-worn footage, custody records, and witness evidence. For defendants, identify the precise legal basis for the detention, show compliance with statutory prerequisites, and justify the duration and manner of restraint. Written policies and training often determine whether the detention was lawful and proportionate.
See also: Assault and battery; Arrest and detention; Habeas corpus; Misfeasance in public office; Article 5 ECHR (right to liberty); Negligence; Aggravated and exemplary damages; Limitation.
Home » False Imprisonment
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
Prisoners challenged segregation from the general inmate population as false imprisonment. The House of Lords held that lawful segregation does not found such a claim, as a prisoner's liberty is already removed by their sentence, leaving no 'residual liberty' to be taken. Facts This case involved appeals by two prisoners, Mr. Hague and Mr. Weldon, who were segregated from the general prison population and claimed this amounted to the tort of false imprisonment. Mr. Hague was a prisoner at H.M. Prison Parkhurst. Following a period of non-cooperation, the governor decided to transfer him to H.M. Prison Wormwood Scrubs. Pending this
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
Foreign prisoners were detained pending deportation under an unpublished, secret policy. The Supreme Court ruled this constituted false imprisonment. However, because they would have been detained anyway under a lawful policy, they were only entitled to nominal, not substantial, damages for the tort. Facts The appellants, Mr Lumba and Mr Mighty, were foreign nationals who had completed criminal sentences in the UK and were subject to deportation orders. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had the power to detain them pending deportation. The published policy regarding such detention, based on the principles established in R v Governor of
