Wamala v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Another

Whether force used during an attempted removal was excessive is determined by the general law, not by the detailed requirements of an operational manual incorporated into a contract. Expert evidence on restraint techniques is therefore unnecessary where the issue can be decided by the trial judge on the facts. Evidence concerning contractual or manual standards may be tangentially relevant, but it does not determine the fundamental question whether the force was reasonably necessary and proportionate. The court may also refuse expert evidence where its marginal relevance is outweighed by the expenditure involved, the limited value of the evidence, the stage of the proceedings and the sums already incurred.

The claimant brought a substantial damages claim arising from an attempted removal to Uganda, including claims in trespass to the person, defamation, negligent misstatement, false imprisonment, breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and breach of Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention. The principal issue was whether lawful removal directions authorised the detention, restraint and removal of the claimant.

Master Cook refused permission for the claimant to rely on expert evidence from a restraint expert. The claimant appealed that case-management decision. The issue before the High Court was whether expert evidence was required to determine the lawfulness or excessiveness of the force used.

1. Appeal dismissed. Master Cook was right to refuse permission for reliance on the proposed expert evidence.
2. The central issue was whether the force used during the attempted removal was lawful and, if so, whether it was no more than reasonably necessary to achieve that lawful purpose. What constitutes excessive force is determined by the general law and is ultimately a question of fact for the trial judge.
3. The Prison Service Use of Force manual, although incorporated into the escorting agency’s contract and potentially tangentially relevant to the standards imposed by the Home Office, did not determine the general-law question. Detailed expert evidence about compliance with that manual would not materially assist the court in deciding whether the force was excessive on the facts.
4. The court was entitled to take account of the stage and scope of the proceedings, the issues at stake, the sums already spent and the proposed further costs. The claim had initially been valued at £25,000 to £50,000, while substantial costs had already been incurred and the proposed report alone would cost approximately £8,000 to £10,000. Expenditure on evidence concerning an issue that was at best tangential was unjustified and disproportionate.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): The appeal from Master Cook's case-management decision was dismissed.
• Earlier procedural history: Master Cook had directed the claim towards trial and refused permission for expert evidence from Mr Barkend on restraint techniques. The High Court upheld that decision.