Yarl's Wood Immigration Ltd & Ors v Bedfordshire Police Authority

The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 is founded on the responsibility of the relevant police authority for maintaining order, rather than creating an unrestricted no-fault compensation scheme. Buildings need not be open to the public to qualify. However, an entity exercising public-law powers and duties for security and order within a custodial institution is not a qualifying claimant for riot damage caused by detainees within that institution. The police retain their general duty and powers to maintain order, but may lawfully exercise their discretion in the light of the custodial operator’s specific statutory responsibilities and agreed arrangements for responding to disorder. A contractual arrangement cannot fetter the police in exercising their public duties, although it may affect the circumstances in which their discretion is exercised.

The claimants operated Yarl’s Wood Immigration Detention Centre under contracts with the Home Secretary and claimed more than £42 million from Bedfordshire Police Authority under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 for fire damage caused during a disturbance by detainees. The proceedings concerned five preliminary issues, one of which ceased to arise because waiver was not relied on. The remaining issues concerned the claimants’ public-authority status, their responsibilities for security and order, the police’s continuing duties and powers, the effect of a joint protocol agreement, and the scope of the 1886 Act.

The central questions were whether the detention-centre operators were qualifying persons under the Act and whether their public-law responsibilities made their claims outside its scope.

1. Public-authority status. YWIL and GSL operated the centre on behalf of the Home Secretary under the statutory scheme governing contracted-out detention centres. Their contractual sub-contracting arrangements did not remove YWIL’s responsibilities or prevent GSL from acquiring corresponding public-law responsibilities.
2. Responsibilities for order. The operators’ statutory duties to prevent unlawful acts, maintain good order and security, and use reasonable force gave them considerable responsibility for order within the centre, including responsibility to prevent riotous disorder. The Home Secretary retained significant powers, including intervention and appointment of a Controller.
3. Police duties. The police retained their fundamental duty and powers to maintain law and order within the centre. The operators’ responsibilities did not remove police control or jurisdiction. They did, however, affect the police discretion as to how and when to respond. On the assumed facts, it was lawful for the police to await a request to take over control, in the light of the operators’ responsibilities and the arrangements with the prison service and police.
4. Joint protocol. The agreement did not displace the police’s statutory or common-law duties. A contractual arrangement which expressly purported to remove those duties would probably be an improper fetter. The agreement and contingency plans nevertheless recognised that the operators would manage incidents until a formal handover.
5. Scope of the 1886 Act. The ordinary meaning of “building” included the detention-centre buildings. The Act was not confined to premises accessible to the public, and a detention centre could fall within “public institution”. The Act’s purpose, however, was to enable ordinary property owners to claim against the public authority responsible for protecting them from riot. It was not intended to permit a public authority with specific responsibility for order within a custodial institution to recover from another public authority with a broadly equivalent responsibility for the same disorder.
6. Disposition. The claimants were not qualifying persons under the Act in respect of damage caused by detainees within the centre. The claims therefore fell outside the scope and intention of the Act. The wider “source of their own loss” issue was not determined at the preliminary stage.