R (on the application of Jalloh (Liberia)) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)
Case
•
[2020] UKSC 4
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R (on the application of Jalloh (Liberia)) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2020] UKSC 4
[2020] UKSC 4
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This appeal concerns a claim for damages for false imprisonment brought by the respondent, Jalloh, against the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had imposed a curfew on him under the Immigration Act 1971. The Secretary of State appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision that the curfew amounted to imprisonment at common law and, as a result, Jalloh was entitled to damages. The appeal raises two main issues: first, whether the curfew amounted to imprisonment at common law, and second, whether if it did, it amounted to a deprivation of liberty under article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and if so, whether the common law concept of imprisonment should be aligned with that concept.
The Supreme Court held that the curfew did indeed amount to imprisonment at common law. The court noted that the essence of imprisonment is being made to stay in a particular place by another person, and that the methods used to keep a person there can be various, including threats of force or legal process. The court found that Jalloh's compliance with the curfew was enforced, and that the idea that he was a free agent, able to come and go as he pleased, was completely unreal. The court also held that the concept of imprisonment for the purpose of the tort of false imprisonment should not be aligned with the concept of deprivation of liberty under article 5 of the ECHR, as this would restrict the classic understanding of imprisonment at common law.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that Jalloh was entitled to damages for false imprisonment. The court held that the common law should continue to protect those who have been unlawfully imprisoned, whether by the State or private persons, and that there was no need for the common law to draw a distinction between the deprivation and the restriction of physical liberty, as the Strasbourg court has done.
The Supreme Court held that the curfew did indeed amount to imprisonment at common law. The court noted that the essence of imprisonment is being made to stay in a particular place by another person, and that the methods used to keep a person there can be various, including threats of force or legal process. The court found that Jalloh's compliance with the curfew was enforced, and that the idea that he was a free agent, able to come and go as he pleased, was completely unreal. The court also held that the concept of imprisonment for the purpose of the tort of false imprisonment should not be aligned with the concept of deprivation of liberty under article 5 of the ECHR, as this would restrict the classic understanding of imprisonment at common law.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that Jalloh was entitled to damages for false imprisonment. The court held that the common law should continue to protect those who have been unlawfully imprisoned, whether by the State or private persons, and that there was no need for the common law to draw a distinction between the deprivation and the restriction of physical liberty, as the Strasbourg court has done.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Human Rights Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Deprivation of Liberty
-
False Imprisonment
-
Constitutional Validity
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Stent v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 3185
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Coleman v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
[2020] NZCA 210
Stent v Attorney-General
[2025] NZHC 3185
Brown v Australian Capital Territory
[2020] ACTSC 70
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
McFadzean v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
[2007] VSCA 289
P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council & Anor
[2014] UKSC 19
Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ
[2007] UKHL 45