Murray v Ministry of Defence

An arrest begins when a person is restrained by words or conduct. Formal words of arrest are unnecessary. A person may be falsely imprisoned without knowing of the restraint and without proving special damage, although lack of awareness may reduce damages.

An arrested person should ordinarily be informed promptly of the reason for arrest, subject to reasonable exceptions. Under statutory powers permitting arrest and a limited search of premises, officers may take reasonable precautions to secure a peaceful arrest. Detention is lawful only for the permitted period reasonably required to investigate the suspicion and decide whether to release the suspect or transfer the suspect to the police.

The appellant sued the Ministry of Defence for false imprisonment arising from her arrest at home and subsequent detention by the army under section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. The trial judge dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland also rejected the false imprisonment complaints, although it separately awarded damages for a pat search, which was not in issue before the House.

The finding that the arresting soldier honestly suspected the appellant of an offence was no longer challenged. The appeal concerned whether the appellant was unlawfully detained before formal words of arrest were spoken and whether her detention and questioning at the army screening centre lasted longer than was reasonably necessary.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Griffiths delivered the leading speech. Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Templeman, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle agreed with his reasons. The Court of Appeal's order rejecting the false imprisonment claim was affirmed.

2. Per Lord Griffiths, an arrest occurs when the arrester restrains a person by words, conduct or force, and it continues until release or a judicial remand. The appellant was therefore under arrest from the moment she was identified and restrained in her home. Formal words of arrest spoken shortly before departure did not mark the beginning of the arrest.

3. Per Lord Griffiths, an arrested person should ordinarily be told the reason for the arrest at the time of arrest or within a reasonable time. Section 14(2) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 required only a statement that the arrest was being effected by a member of Her Majesty's forces. In the dangerous circumstances of a house arrest involving suspected IRA activity, delaying the formal words until the household had been secured and the appellant was ready to leave was reasonable. If a suspect refuses to accept the restraint, however, the suspect should be informed immediately that he or she is under arrest.

4. Per Lord Griffiths, section 14(3) authorised entry and a search directed to effecting the arrest, not a search for incriminating evidence. Soldiers could search rooms for other occupants and assemble the occupants briefly in one room where those precautions were reasonably directed to securing a peaceful arrest. The resulting short restraint was a proper and necessary incident of that procedure.

5. Per Lord Griffiths, awareness of restraint is not an essential element of false imprisonment. A wrongful interference with individual liberty remains actionable without proof of special damage. A person who was unaware of the imprisonment and suffered no harm would ordinarily recover only nominal damages. The contrary approach in Herring v Boyle was displaced, and Atkin LJ's approach in Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd was approved.

6. Per Lord Griffiths, section 14 did not confine questioning to the arresting officer. A properly briefed and skilled interviewer could question a suspect to confirm or allay the suspicion. The statutory maximum of four hours did not authorise detention for longer than was reasonably required to decide whether to release the suspect or transfer the suspect to the police. The Ministry bore the burden of justifying both limits. The evidence established that the questioning and period of detention were reasonable.

1. House of Lords: Dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
2. Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland: Rejected the appellant's complaints of false imprisonment. It separately allowed her appeal concerning a pat search and awarded £250 damages, but that ruling was not appealed to the House.
3. High Court in Northern Ireland: Murray J dismissed the false imprisonment claim and found that the arresting soldier honestly suspected the appellant of relevant offences.