Unlawful Detention Landmark Rulings
๐ What is Unlawful Detention?
Also called false imprisonment, unlawful detention occurs when someone is restrained or confined without legal justification. In the UK, this can occur in:
Police or state custody (e.g. overholding without charge)
Immigration detention
Mental health detention
Even private security or citizen actions
This is both a civil tort and potentially a human rights violation under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): the right to liberty and security.
โ๏ธ Landmark UK Cases on Unlawful Detention
1. R v. Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No. 2) [2001] 2 AC 19
๐ Facts:
A prisoner (Evans) was kept in custody longer than her sentence allowed due to an outdated calculation method.
The prison governor followed what was believed to be lawful procedure at the time.
โ๏ธ Held:
The House of Lords held the detention unlawful, even though the governor acted in good faith.
Intent or fault didnโt matter โ what mattered was lawfulness of detention.
๐ Significance:
One of the most important modern cases.
Shows that good faith or error in law doesnโt justify detention.
Established strict liability for false imprisonment.
2. Lumba v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12
๐ Facts:
Lumba (and other foreign nationals) were detained after serving criminal sentences, pending deportation.
Detention was based on secret, unpublished policies, not on lawful published policy.
โ๏ธ Held:
Supreme Court ruled detention unlawful, since the Home Office used unlawful policy even though the power to detain existed.
The failure to follow published legal procedure was fatal.
๐ Significance:
Massive case for immigration detention.
Made clear: detention must follow proper legal and transparent procedures.
Raised standards for administrative decision-making.
3. R (Kambadzi) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 23
๐ Facts:
Kambadzi was a failed asylum seeker detained under immigration powers.
The Home Office failed to conduct regular reviews of his detention, as required.
โ๏ธ Held:
Supreme Court ruled detention unlawful due to breach of internal safeguards.
Procedural irregularities in detention reviews made the whole detention unlawful.
๐ Significance:
Reinforced the importance of procedural safeguards in detention powers.
Even short failures in process can invalidate detention.
4. R v. Bournewood NHS Trust, ex parte L [1999] 1 AC 458
๐ Facts:
"L", an adult with autism and learning disabilities, was kept in hospital informally under common law (not sectioned).
He couldnโt leave and wasnโt capable of consenting.
โ๏ธ Held:
The House of Lords initially ruled detention lawful.
But later, the European Court of Human Rights in HL v. UK (2004) said this violated Article 5 ECHR.
๐ Significance:
Landmark for mental health detention.
Led to major legal changes, including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Highlighted that โinformal detentionโ is still detention and must be legally authorised.
5. Zenati v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2015] EWCA Civ 80
๐ Facts:
Zenati was arrested and held overnight by police, but paperwork was incomplete.
No proper authorisation for continued detention.
โ๏ธ Held:
Court found detention unlawful, even though police believed they had the power.
Detaining someone without proper paperwork or process amounts to false imprisonment.
๐ Significance:
Emphasised the need for strict procedural compliance by police.
Reinforced that formality matters, not just substance.
6. R (B) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 98 (Admin)
๐ Facts:
B was detained in a secure mental hospital under the Mental Health Act.
Delay in transferring him to less restrictive conditions after tribunal decision.
โ๏ธ Held:
Delay was unjustified and amounted to unlawful deprivation of liberty.
๐ Significance:
Extended unlawful detention to unjustified delays after legal decisions.
Shows the state must act quickly to restore liberty when ordered.
๐ Key Legal Principles
| Principle | What It Means |
|---|---|
| Strict liability | Detention can be unlawful even without bad intent |
| Legal authority required | No one can be detained unless the law clearly allows it |
| Procedural compliance matters | Missed reviews or bad paperwork can invalidate detention |
| Transparency required | Detention policies must be public and legally sound |
| Mental health protection | Informal or unclear confinement = breach of human rights |
๐ง Quick Summary Table
| Case | Key Point |
|---|---|
| Evans (No. 2) (2001) | Overholding = unlawful even if in good faith |
| Lumba (2011) | Secret policies = detention invalid |
| Kambadzi (2011) | Missed reviews = unlawful detention |
| Bournewood / HL v. UK (2004) | Informal mental health detention breached ECHR |
| Zenati (2015) | Lack of paperwork = false imprisonment |
| R (B) (2012) | Delays in release = unlawful deprivation of liberty |
โ Final Takeaways
Unlawful detention is taken seriously by UK and European courts.
Legal authority must be clear, valid, and correctly applied.
Courts focus not only on substance (why someone is detained) but also on procedure (how itโs done).
Human rights law (ECHR) adds another layer of protection, especially under Article 5.
Government bodies (police, prison, Home Office, NHS) must act swiftly and lawfully, or face liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments