R. v. Brockhill Prison (Governor); Ex parte Evans, (2000) 258 N.R. 201 (HL)

• Case Date: July 27, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 258 N.R. 201 (HL)

R. v. Brockhill Prison (2000), 258 N.R. 201 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Regina v. Governor of Her Majesty's Prison Brockhill (appellant) Ex parte Evans

(respondent)

Indexed As: R. v. Brockhill Prison (Governor); Ex parte Evans

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

July 27, 2000.

Summary:

Evans was sentenced to two years' im­prisonment. Pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, she was entitled to a reduction in the sentence for time served. It was for the governor of the prison where she was in­carcerated to work out the reduction and calculate her release date. The governor therefore calculated her release date in ac­cordance with earlier decisions of the Di­visional Court which the Home Office and the governor believed they were bound to follow. Evans applied for habeas corpus, arguing that the governor miscalculated her release date. She subsequently commenced a judicial review, including a claim for dam­ages for false imprisonment.

The Divisional Court held that she had been held 59 days longer than she should have been. The court held that the cases relied on by the governor and Home Office in calculating her release date were wrongly decided and should be overruled. The court dismissed her claim for damages for false imprisonment. Evans appealed respecting damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal. The court held that the governor was liable for damages for false imprisonment (£5,000). The governor appealed.

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal.

Damage Awards - Topic 630

Torts - Injury to the person - False or unlawful imprisonment - [See Torts - Topic 3252 ].

Prisons - Topic 443

Actions against prison officers and author­i­ties - Tort - False imprisonment - [See Torts - Topic 3252 ].

Torts - Topic 3252

Trespass - False imprisonment - What constitutes false imprisonment - The gov­ernor of a prison calculated a prisoner's release date in accordance with earlier decisions of the Divisional Court - The prisoner argued that the governor miscal­cu­lated her release date and claimed dam­ages for false imprisonment - The Divi­sional Court overruled the earlier decisions and held that she was held 59 days longer than necessary - No damages were awarded - The Court of Appeal, however, awarded damages of £5,000 - The House of Lords affirmed the decision - The fact that the governor thought, based on court rulings, that the prisoner was lawfully detained was not sufficient justification to be a defence to the tort of false imprison­ment.

Torts - Topic 3253

Trespass - False imprisonment - Defences -Justification - [See Torts - Topic 3252 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Blundeston Prison (Governor); Ex parte Gaffney, [1982] 1 W.L.R. 696 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 3, 14, 31, 56].

R. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Office); Ex parte Read (1987), 9 Cr. App. Rep.(S.) 206 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Styal Prison (Governor); Ex parte Mooney, [1996] 1 Cr. App. Rep.(S.) 74 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 3, 56].

R. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department); Ex parte Naughton, [1997] 1 W.L.R. 118 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 6, 31, 56].

Eleko v. Nigeria (Government) (Adminis­tering Officer), [1931] A.C. 662 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 19, 60].

Boddington v. British Transport Police, [1999] 2 A.C. 143; 227 N.R. 13 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 19, 75].

Colwell, Re (1988), 13 N.S.W.L.R. 714 (N.S.W.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department); Ex parte A., [2000] 2 W.L.R. 293 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Fairhurst (1986), 8 Cr. App. Rep.(S.) 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Towers (1989), 9 Cr. App. Rep.(S.) 333 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Lodde, The Times, March 8, 2000 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Collins (1994), 16 Cr. App. Rep.(S.) 156 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Mee v. Cruickshank (1902), 20 Cox C.C. 210, refd to. [para. 34].

Olliet v. Bessey (1682), 1 T. Jones Rep. 214, refd to. [para. 38].

Greaves v. Keene (1879), 4 Ex. D. 73, refd to. [paras. 38, 56].

Henderson v. Preston (1888), 21 Q.B.D. 362, refd to. [paras. 38, 70].

Olotu v. Home Office - see Olutu v. Home Office.

Olutu v. Home Office, [1997] 1 W.L.R. 328 (Mag. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 38, 68].

Percy v. Hall, [1997] Q.B. 924 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Starrs v. Ruxton, [2000] S.L.T. 42 (Scot.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. National Insurance Commissioner; Ex parte Hudson, [1972] A.C. 944, refd to. [para. 44].

Launchbury v. Morgans, [1973] A.C. 127, refd to. [para. 44].

Kleinwort Benson Ltd. v. Lincoln (City), [1999] 2 A.C. 349; 233 N.R. 201 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 46, 64].

Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (1979), 2 E.H.R.R. 245 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rgts.), refd to. [para. 48].

Zamir v. United Kingdom (1985), 40 D.R. 42, refd to. [para. 48].

Engel v. Netherlands (1976), 1 E.H.R.R. 647, refd to. [para. 48].

Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece (1997), 25 E.H.R.R. 198, refd to. [paras. 48, 80].

Benham v. United Kingdom (1996), 22 E.H.R.R. 293 (Strasbourg Ct.), refd to. [paras. 50, 77].

Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece (1997), 25 E.H.R.R. 647, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison; Ex parte Hague, [1992] 1 A.C. 58; 141 N.R. 161 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 60].

McC, Re, [1985] A.C. 528 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 75].

Davies, Ex parte, [1989] 1 All E.R. 90, refd to. [para. 75].

United Kingdom (Secretary of State) v. Percy, [1999] All E.R. 732, refd to. [para. 75].

Demer v. Cook (1903), 88 L.T. 629, refd to. [para. 76].

Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson (1971), 404 U.S. 97, refd to. [para. 89].

S.W. v. United Kingdom (1995), 21 E.H.R.R. 363, refd to. [para. 90].

Statutes Noticed:

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free­doms, art. 1, art. 5 [paras. 21, 47].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Archbold 2000, para. 19-331 [para. 34].

Clerk, John F., and Lindsell, The Law of Torts (17th Ed. 1995), para. 12-17 [para. 34].

Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously (1977), pp. 24, 25, 26 [para. 18].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (9th Ed. 1998), p. 33 [para. 34].

Fordham, False Imprisonment in Good Faith, Tort Law Review (2000), p. 53 [para. 20].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.) (Reissue 1990), vol. 11, para. 492 [para. 34].

Holdsworth, William, A History of English Law (2nd Ed. 1937), vol. VIII, p. 446 [para. 33].

MacCormick, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (1995), pp. 231, 232 [para. 18].

Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (15th Ed. 1998), generally [para. 34].

Counsel:

Ross Cranston, Q.C.M.P., Solicitor General and Philip Sales, for the appellants;

Ben Emmerson, Q.C., and Peter Weather­by, for the respondents;

Laurence Rabinowicz, amicus counsel.

Agents:

Treasury Solicitor, for the appellants and as amicus;

Kingsford Stacey Blackwell, for the re­spondents.

This appeal was heard on February 28, 29, March 1 and 2, 2000, by Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hob­house of Woodborough, of the House of Lords.

The decision of the House of Lords was delivered on July 27, 2000, and the follow­ing opinions were filed:

Lord Slynn of Hadley - see paragraphs 1 to 11;

Lord Browne-Wilkinson - see paragraphs 12 to 13;

Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 14 to 24;

Lord Hope of Craighead - see paragraphs 25 to 54;

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - see paragraphs 55 to 92.