Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison and others ex parte Hague; Weldon v Secretary of State for the Home Department (conjoined appeals)

The House of Lords held that breach of the Prison Rules 1964 does not, of itself, give rise to a private law cause of action for damages. The court treated the question of a remedy for breach of the rules as one of statutory construction of the Prison Act 1952 and its rule‑making power under section 47, concluding that the rules are regulatory in character and were not intended to create private rights of action. The Lords also held that a convicted prisoner lawfully detained in pursuance of a sentence under section 12(1) of the Prison Act 1952 cannot generally maintain an action for false imprisonment against the Secretary of State or the governor for changes in the conditions of confinement or for deprivation of so‑called "residual liberty"; however, third parties or prison officers acting without authority or in bad faith may be personally liable. The court recognised separate private law remedies (for example negligence, assault or misfeasance in public office) where facts establish those causes of action, and public law remedies (judicial review) for unlawful administrative decisions.

The appeals arose from two different actions by convicted prisoners. In Hague the prisoner challenged his segregation and transfer, arguing that the procedure relied upon under Rule 43 of the Prison Rules 1964 was unlawful and sought declarations and damages for false imprisonment and breach of statutory duty. The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review; the Court of Appeal declared aspects of the procedure unlawful but refused to quash the orders and held that damages did not lie. In Weldon the claimant pleaded assault and battery and false imprisonment after being removed to a punishment strip cell; lower courts and the Court of Appeal had declined to strike out the false imprisonment allegation.

Relief sought: judicial review declarations and damages (Hague); damages for assault and false imprisonment (Weldon).

Issues framed:

• whether a breach of the Prison Rules 1964 gives rise to a private law cause of action for damages;
• whether a convicted prisoner lawfully detained can sue for false imprisonment either because he has a residual liberty within prison or because conditions of detention can become "intolerable" so as to render detention unlawful;
• whether prison officers acting without authority or in bad faith may be personally liable.

Court's reasoning (concise): The Lords analysed statutory purpose and precedent and concluded that the Prison Rules 1964 are regulatory and were not intended by Parliament (via section 47 of the Prison Act 1952) to create private rights enforceable in damages; the earlier decisions to the contrary were distinguished or applied where appropriate. On false imprisonment, the court held that section 12(1) of the Prison Act 1952 authorises lawful confinement in any prison and provides the governor and authorised officers with a defence to false imprisonment claims arising from ordinary exercise of prison regime powers. The tort of false imprisonment requires an absence of lawful authority: where a restraint is imposed without legal authority (for example by unauthorised third parties or by officers acting in bad faith) false imprisonment may lie. The Lords declined to treat breaches of prison rules or ordinary changes in conditions of detention as converting lawful detention into unlawful detention for the purposes of false imprisonment; intolerable conditions may give rise to other private law remedies (negligence or assault) or to public law relief but should not be used to qualify section 12(1) generally.

The House dismissed Hague's appeal and allowed the Home Office's appeal in Weldon. The Lords affirmed that breach of the Prison Rules 1964 does not of itself found a private law claim for damages and that lawful detention under section 12(1) of the Prison Act 1952 is not rendered a false imprisonment by misapplication of the rules or by change in conditions save where an actor lacks legal authority (e.g. third parties or officers acting in bad faith). The court emphasised available alternative remedies (negligence, assault, misfeasance, judicial review).

Hague: Divisional Court dismissed application; Court of Appeal allowed in part and made declarations [1990] 3 W.L.R. 1210; House of Lords dismissed appeal [1991] UKHL 13. Weldon: County Court proceedings (claim not struck out by registrar); appeals from registrar dismissed by assistant recorder and Court of Appeal [1990] 3 W.L.R. 465; House of Lords allowed Home Office appeal [1991] UKHL 13.