Williams v Home Office (No 2): 1981

Tudor-Evans J said: ‘In my judgment, the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) always afford a defence to an action of false imprisonment. The sentence justifies the fact of imprisonment and the subsection justifies the confinement of a prisoner in any prison. How then can it be unjustifiable and unlawful to confine him there? I accept the submission . . that the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) provide a defence to this action, subject to the arguments based on the Bill of Rights and natural justice . . The next question is whether the lawfulness of the detention can be affected by the conditions of the detention. I do not think so. The question of the conditions of imprisonment is a matter for the Secretary of State. The check or safeguard against unacceptable conditions . . lies in the prisoner’s rights under the rules to complain to the governor or the Secretary of State.’
Tudor-Evans J
[1981] 1 All ER 1151
England and Wales
Citing:

  • See Also – Williams v Home Office (No 2) 2-Jan-1981
    The plaintiff prisoner had been transferred from ordinary prison to a special control unit which had been established at the prison as a means of containing and controlling prisoners who were considered to be troublemakers and inducing them to . .
    [1981] 1 All ER 1211

Cited by:

  • See Also – Williams v Home Office (No 2) 2-Jan-1981
    The plaintiff prisoner had been transferred from ordinary prison to a special control unit which had been established at the prison as a means of containing and controlling prisoners who were considered to be troublemakers and inducing them to . .
    [1981] 1 All ER 1211
  • See Also – Home Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
    The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
    Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
    [1983] 1 AC 280, [1982] 2 WLR 338, [1982] 1 All ER 532, (1982) 126 SJ 136
  • Cited – Middleweek v The Chief Constable of Merseyside (Note) CA 1990
    The plaintiff had been awarded damages for false imprisonment by the jury on the basis that his otherwise lawful detention at a police station had been made unlawful because it was unreasonable in the circumstances to keep him in a police cell.
    [1990] 3 WLR 481
  • Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
    The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
    [1992] 1 AC 58, Times 25-Jul-91, [1991] 3 All ER 733, [1990] UKHL 8, [1991] 3 WLR 340, [1992] COD 69, (1993) 5 Admin LR 425, [1991] UKHL 13, [1991] BCC 713, 1991 SLT 523, 1991 SC (HL) 22

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 December 2020; Ref: scu.223347