The claimants sought damages and other reliefs after being wrongfully detained by immigration officers for several days, during which they had been detained at a detention centre and left locked up when it burned down, being released only by other inmates. The respondent argued that immigration officers had immunity from suit.
Held: Brooke LJ said that what the law requires is that the policies for administrative detention are published and that immigration officers do not stray outside the four corners of those policies when taking decisions in individual cases. Where a detention would normally be regarded as unlawful, and led to a loss of liberty, an immigration officer enjoyed no immunity from suit, and was liable to pay compensation. The arguments of policy to deny compensation were overwhelmed by those recognising the seriousness of unlawful detention.
If the proceedings in that case in which damages were claimed for false imprisonment in breach of the claimants’ Convention rights were viable, they were properly brought as a private law action.
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Thomas, Lord Justice Jacob
 EWCA Civ 38, Times 10-Feb-2005,  INLR 27,  1 All ER 183,  1 WLR 1003
England and Wales
Cited – Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
All Public Law Challenges are For a Nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others HL 31-Oct-2002
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away . .
Cited – Mohammed Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Office and Another CA 5-Jul-1994
The revocation of a deportation order does not make a detention pending deportation retrospectively unlawful. . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .
Cited – Nadarajah and Amirhanathan v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 8-Dec-2003
The Secretary of State’s published policy was that, if legal proceedings were initiated, removal would not be treated as imminent even if it otherwise was. The Secretary of State also had an unpublished policy, namely that information that . .
Cited – V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .
Cited – Percy and Another v Hall and Others QBD 31-May-1996
There was no wrongful arrest where the bylaw under which it was made was invalid. The question is the belief of the arresting officers. The effect of retrospective legislation is not always fully worked through. English law provides no cause of . .
Cited – Grinham v Willey 1859
A felony crime was reported to the police by the defendant. The police officer attended, and on the information supplied arrested the plaintiff who was taken to the police station and charged, signing the charge sheet.
Held: The defendant was . .
Cited – Davidson v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Another CA 31-May-1993
A store detective said the plaintiffs had stolen from the store. He was wrong. The plaintiffs sought damages from the defendant for false imprisonment.
Held: If the police use their own discretion to arrest a suspect, an informer is not liable . .
No longer sustainable – Everett v Griffiths HL 1921
The plaintiff had been committed to a mental hospital. The question was whether the doctor (Anklesaria) who signed the certificate to support his committal was liable to him in negligence.
Held: The House affirmed the judgment of the Court of . .
Cited – Eshugbayi Eleko v Office Administering the Government of Nigeria HL 24-Mar-1931
The claimant sought a writ of habeas corpus.
Held: Lord Atkin said that in a habeas corpus case, ‘no member of the executive can interfere with the liberty or property of a British subject except on condition that he can support the legality . .
Cited – Liversidge v Sir John Anderson HL 3-Nov-1941
The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment. The Secretary of State had refused to disclose certain documents. The question was as to the need for the defendant to justify the use of his powers by disclosing the documents.
Held: The . .
Cited – Murray v Ministry of Defence HL 25-May-1988
The plaintiff complained that she had been wrongfully arrested by a soldier, since he had not given a proper reason for her detention.
Held: The House accepted the existence of an implied power in a statute which would be necessary to ensure . .
Cited – TF, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 18-Dec-2008
The claimant had been near to completing a sentence for serious violence. He now challenged the way in which, as his sentenced approached completion, the defendant had sought an order transferring him to a secure mental hospital. He was served with . .
Cited – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
Cited – Ruddy v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police and Another SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer said that he had been assaulted whilst in the custody of the responder’s officers. He began civil actions after his complaint was rejected. He repeated the allegation of the assault, and complained also as to the conduct of the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.222041