Olotu v Home Office

Expiry of a custody time limit makes continued detention unlawful and entitles the accused to bail by order of the court. It does not authorise or require a prison governor to release a prisoner held under a valid warrant of commitment. The governor remains bound by the warrant until the court directs otherwise.

A breach of statutory duty supports a private claim for damages only where the legislation, properly construed, intended to create such a remedy. The custody time-limit scheme imposed public duties on the prosecution and protected accused persons through bail and public law remedies. It did not create a statutory tort carrying strict liability in damages.

The plaintiff was committed in custody for trial under a warrant directing the prison governor to keep her until delivered in due course of law. She remained imprisoned for 81 days after the applicable 112-day custody time limit had expired. The Crown Prosecution Service had neither obtained an extension nor arranged for her timely appearance before the Crown Court.

The plaintiff claimed damages from the Home Office for false imprisonment and from the Crown Prosecution Service for breach of statutory duty. A deputy High Court judge struck out the Home Office claim but permitted the claim against the Crown Prosecution Service to proceed. The plaintiff appealed against the former decision, and the Crown Prosecution Service appealed against the latter.

The central issues were whether the prison governor became liable for false imprisonment when the custody time limit expired and whether regulation 6 of the Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 created a private right of action in damages.

1. The plaintiff’s appeal against the Home Office was dismissed unanimously. Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ held that the plaintiff was in the custody of the Crown Court. Expiry of the custody time limit rendered her continued detention unlawful and obliged the Crown Court to release her on bail. An order could have been sought from the Crown Court or the Divisional Court. Expiry did not, however, authorise or require the prison governor to release her without a court order.

   Mummery LJ agreed that the valid warrant of commitment conclusively answered the false imprisonment claim. The governor was bound to obey its direction until a court ordered otherwise. Neither the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 nor the regulations varied that duty or conferred an independent power of release. Moone v Rose was distinguished because the gaoler there had breached an express statutory duty to discharge the prisoner after a fixed period.

2. The Crown Prosecution Service’s appeal was allowed unanimously, and the statutory-duty claim was struck out. Regulation 6 imposed specific duties on the prosecution to give notice and arrange for the accused to be brought before the Crown Court before expiry of the custody time limit. The Crown Prosecution Service had failed to perform those duties.

   Applying R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague [1992] 1 AC 58 and X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633, the court examined the object and scope of the legislation, the protected class and the available means of redress. Although the scheme protected accused persons against excessive pre-trial detention, neither the Act nor the regulations indicated an intention to create a private right to damages. Bail, habeas corpus, mandamus and judicial review supplied the contemplated remedies. The silence concerning damages and the absence of authority for regulations to create a statutory tort were strong indicators against strict civil liability.

3. Lord Bingham LCJ rejected reliance on article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Even assuming that recourse to the Convention was permissible, the United Kingdom had afforded the plaintiff rights to trial within a reasonable time, release pending trial and a speedy judicial determination. The excessive detention resulted from those rights not being exercised, rather than from their absence.

1. Court of Appeal: Dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the striking out of her false imprisonment claim against the Home Office. Allowed the Crown Prosecution Service’s appeal and struck out the claim for breach of statutory duty.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Miss Barbara Dohmann QC, sitting as a deputy judge, struck out the claim against the Home Office but refused to strike out the claim against the Crown Prosecution Service. No citation is stated in the judgment.