Tort

False imprisonment - prisoner serving sentence - miscalculation of release date resulting in prisoner being detained too long - prison governor liable for false imprisonmentRegina v Governor of HM Prison Brockhill, Ex parte Evans (No.

2): HL (Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough):27 July 2000

The applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest being for two years, for several offences of violence and dishonesty.

She had, prior to her conviction and sentence, been remanded in custody for various periods following her arrest for each of the offences.

The prison governor calculated her date of release in accordance with Home Office instructions which complied with the law as it then stood.

On the respondent's application for habeas corpus, the Divisional Court [1997] QB 443 held that the previous law on calculation of release dates was incorrect and that the applicant should have been released 59 days earlier.

She was released forthwith and claimed damages against the governor for 59 days of false imprisonment.

Collins J dismissed the claim, but the Court of Appeal [1999] QB 1043 allowed the respondent's appeal and awarded her damages.

The prison governor appealed.

Ross Cranston QC, Solicitor-General, Philip Sales and Michael Fordham (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the prison governor; Laurence Rabinowitz (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) as amicus curiae; Ben Emmerson and Peter Weatherby (instructed by Graysons, Sheffield) for the applicant.

Held, dismissing the appeal that the applicant was not lawfully detained during the last 59 days of her imprisonment but was merely thought to be lawfully detained, and that was not sufficient justification for the tort of false imprisonment even if based on rulings of the court; that false imprisonment was a tort of strict liability, the consequences of which could not be escaped even by showing that the defendant acted in accordance with the view of the law which at the time was accepted by the courts as being correct; that the defence of justification must be based upon a rigorous application of the principle that the liberty of the subject could be interfered with only upon grounds which a court would uphold as lawful; and that the applicant was entitled to recover compensation since the executive could no longer support the lawfulness of her detention.

(WLR)