Regina v Governor of Her Majesty's Prison Brockhill, Ex parte Evans

The tort of false imprisonment is one of strict liability: an unlawful deprivation of liberty gives rise to liability unless the detention is lawfully justified. Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (as amended) commits the calculation of a prisoner’s release date to the governor; the governor cannot rely on good faith adherence to a prevailing but incorrect line of judicial authority as a defence to a claim for false imprisonment. The declaratory theory of judicial decisions applies so that a later authoritative construction of section 67 may be treated as showing what the correct meaning always was; prospective overruling was recognised as conceptually possible but was not applied in this case. Article 5 of the European Convention reinforces the conclusion that victims of unlawful detention have an enforceable right to compensation.

The respondent (Miss Evans) was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on 12 January 1996 and, because of time spent in custody before sentence, was entitled under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to a reduction in the actual period to be served. The governor calculated the conditional release date in accordance with Home Office guidance and a line of Divisional Court authority commencing with Reg. v Governor of Blundeston Prison, Ex parte Gaffney, resulting in a later release date than the respondent contended for. The respondent applied for a writ of habeas corpus and for judicial review; the Divisional Court held the correct release date to be 17 September 1996 and ordered immediate release (Reg. v Governor of Brockhill Prison, Ex parte Evans [1997] Q.B. 443). The respondent then pursued damages for false imprisonment.

• Nature of the claim: damages for false imprisonment (strict liability tort) for 59 days' alleged unlawful detention, together with applications for habeas corpus and judicial review.
• Issues framed: (i) whether the governor could be liable in tort despite having acted in accordance with the then prevailing judicial authorities and Home Office guidance; (ii) whether the Divisional Court's ruling operated retrospectively; (iii) the relevance of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Reasoning and disposition: the House of Lords held that false imprisonment is a strict liability tort and that a defendant cannot escape liability merely by showing that he acted in good faith in accordance with an incorrect, though settled, view of the law. The governor’s role under section 67 meant responsibility for the calculation rested on him; an obedience or good-faith defence that would reduce the protection of personal liberty was rejected. The court applied the declaratory theory so that the earlier detention was unlawful and compensable; the prospects of prospective overruling were noted but not employed. The Court of Appeal’s assessment of damages (£5,000) was upheld.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that the governor is liable in the tort of false imprisonment for detention after the correct release date as determined by the Divisional Court; acting in good faith in accordance with prevailing but incorrect judicial authority or Home Office guidance was not a defence. The declaratory effect of the Divisional Court’s ruling meant the detention was unlawful and compensable, and Article 5 ECHR supports an enforceable right to compensation.

Divisional Court: Reg. v Governor of Brockhill Prison, Ex parte Evans [1997] Q.B. 443 (declaration that release date was 17 September 1996 and immediate release ordered). Collins J (Queen's Bench) dismissed an application for damages on 10 June 1997. Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal on liability and increased damages to £5,000: [1999] Q.B. 1043. House of Lords dismissed the appeal: [2000] UKHL 48; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 843.