Mohammed v The Home Office

Damages for false imprisonment must be assessed globally and by reference to the particular claimant’s harm. The court should consider the length of detention, its circumstances, any preceding lawful custody, and aggravating features. Awards should not be calculated mechanically by applying a daily tariff. The initial shock of detention will usually justify a higher rate, but a taper remains appropriate during longer detention even where the claimant has substantial experience of imprisonment and suffered little initial shock. Separate periods of unlawful detention constitute separate torts and should be assessed separately rather than simply aggregated.

The claimant, a Somali national and foreign criminal liable to deportation, brought a claim for damages for false imprisonment arising from three periods of immigration detention totalling 445 days. The Home Office conceded liability shortly before trial and abandoned its contention that only nominal damages should be awarded. The remaining issue was the assessment of damages, including whether the periods should be treated separately, the effect of the claimant’s previous imprisonment, his post-traumatic stress disorder, and alleged aggravating features in the Home Office’s detention decision-making.

1. The three periods of unlawful immigration detention were three separate torts. They had different durations and circumstances, and damages were therefore assessed separately rather than by aggregating the periods.
2. The assessment of damages for false imprisonment is fact-sensitive and requires a global assessment of the harm suffered. The court must avoid a rigid daily tariff. Relevant matters included the length of each period, the preceding lawful custody, the restrictive prison regime, the open-ended nature of immigration detention, the exacerbation of post-traumatic stress disorder, and the Home Office’s failings.
3. The claimant was not an initial-shock case because of his extensive experience of imprisonment and the lawful custody preceding each period. That reduced the appropriate rate, but did not remove the need for tapering during longer periods. The claimant’s criminal character did not deprive him of compensation; the relevant question was the effect of the unlawful detention on him.
4. The Home Office had failed seriously to engage with the Hardial Singh principles and had failed properly to respond to independent medical evidence of torture under rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001. Those matters were serious aggravating features, but were reflected in the basic damages assessment to avoid double recovery.
5. Damages were awarded at £8,500 for the first period, £25,000 for the second, and £45,000 for the third, making a total award of £78,500.